Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for attending and tuning into the Committee on Communication Conveyance's Bill hearing today. My name is Tasha Boerner, as I serve as the chair of the Committee. Joining me on the dais today, our vice. oh, Vice Chair Patterson isn't here, but Assemblymember Lori Davies is here, so I'm very happy to see you.

Thank you for being on time. We're being joined also by Emilio Perez, the chief consultant to the communications Committee, as well as Elizabeth Delgado, the Committee's secretary. And joining us for this hearing is Daniel Ballen, consultant with the Republican Caucus policy unit. Today we have three agenda items, and there are no proposed items on consent.

Before we begin our Bill presentation, I like to take care of some logistical housekeeping. If any Member of the public in this room would like to testify in a Bill during public comment period, I will invite you to approach the microphone at the appropriate time and ask the public not to 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 this hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include taking or talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening and abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussions of matters not related to subject of the hearing or the Bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps.

If any 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 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 assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol building. So this afternoon, we have three items to be heard.

Noticing the absence of a quorum, we will operate as a Subcommitee, and we'll proceed to item one, SB 424, by Senator Durazzo, the Get Connected California Act of 2024. Senator Razzo, you may open.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Member of the Committee. And to start, how much I really appreciate the time and effort that you yourself put into this and your staff have worked very, very, very hard to get where we're at today.

So because of that, I accept the Committee amendments outlined on pages 6 and 7 of the analysis. SB 424 is urgently needed. We have to figure out how to connect low paid households to high speed quality Internet. It's our responsibility.

With the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity program, California must take action to reach the poorest households with access to this basic necessity and to guarantee that there always will be affordable, high speed quality Internet service.

Over 5.8 million low income households in California need affordable Internet to improve their quality of life, for public safety, for education, for economic opportunities. We led the nation in enrolling nearly 3 million households in the ACP program. Still, more than 2.8 million eligible households remained unenrolled when the program ended, with many unaware of its existence.

We must continue our commitment to promote awareness in California's poorest communities and not take for granted that limited access to Internet means a limited access to information. Even now, many eligible households do not know that they have the options they can afford and are often sold more expensive plans when they seek out connectivity.

Right now, California is investing $10 billion in infrastructure deployment. At the same time, we continue to have the highest supplemental poverty rate of all 50 states. We must have standards for the corporations receiving our valuable taxpayer dollars. At a minimum, these ISP's should be required to help get all low income households online.

The digital divide was among the most glaring social inequities laid bare by the pandemic. Almost a quarter of California's households do not have access to either computer or high speed Internet. This is shameful. We must continue our commitment to these families.

And never again should students have to sit on a curb in front of Taco Bell to get their schoolwork done. We know what works to get people connected. SB 424 is an important piece of this commitment. With me, Madam Chair is Leticia Alejandro's from California Emerging Technology Fund and Senator Richard Polanco.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members who will soon arrive. I'm here today on behalf of the California Emerging Technology Fund. I have worked tirelessly my entire life to organize communities to seek justice in economy and in our democracy. Many of us have worked together in the trenches to give voice to the most disadvantaged.

I represent the California emerging technology, the sponsor of the bill. Thank you, Senator Durazo, for your courage, for your courageous leadership, and the need to lift all Californians, especially the most digitally disadvantaged. We commend Chairwoman Boerner for her amendments. Thank you.

These amendments will require ISP's that receive infrastructure grants after January 1 of 2026 to offer all customers a lower cost Internet service subscription. This offer will benefit all Californians however, there's still some unfinished business this Legislature and Governor will have to address two very important priority issues.

First, all customers will have to be informed by the ISP's about the availability of the lower cost offers. Posting the information on the ISP website is not enough, especially for the households who cannot access the Internet. Second, there must be public accountability for results.

The ISP's and government agencies must report on the impact to this Legislature and to the public. California taxpayers have committed 10 billion to broadband infrastructure, and now we need affordability and accountability. CETF has the experience to mobilize statewide and accelerate progress.

We enrolled more than 50% of the 5.8 million ACP eligible households, in contrast to the lifeline program, which has been in existence for more than four decades, which has about 1.1 million participants. Now is the time for this Legislature to take bold steps towards digital equity.

We urge your aye vote and thank you, Madam Chair, for the amendments.

Thank you and good afternoon chair Boerner and Committee Members. I'm Leticia Alejandrez. I'm with the California Emerging Technology Fund. Today I'm wearing a different hat and that's of the digital equity coalition. This coalition consists of more than 50 statewide community based organizations that support ubiquitous deployment and universal adoption of broadband Internet.

Thank you, Senator Durazo, for your leadership in ensuring that low income households have access to broadband Internet. To put this issue in context, again, there are 5.8 million low income, digitally disadvantaged households in California in this Committee alone. Collectively, you represent 3.3 million of those households.

The Legislature and Governor have been trailblazers in pursuing digital equity by authorizing significant funding for broadband infrastructure. However, infrastructure is necessary but not sufficient. Californians must be able to afford home Internet service. SB 424 is the last major policy piece needed to fulfill the promise of digital equity for all Californians.

To underscore Senator Polanco's comments, we must ensure awareness of affordable offers to eligible households and we must ensure accountability for impact.

As California makes a $10 billion B billion dollar investment in infrastructure projects and initiatives, shouldn't ISP's 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 modern, modern daily life as we know it? We ask for your aye vote for SB 424. Thank you.

Thank you to the proponents. We'll move to any additional witnesses and support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation and position only, please.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis on behalf of Los Amigos De La Comunidad, in support. Thank you.

Marvin Pineda, on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina, in support. Thank you.

Okay, so thank you for the witnesses and support. We'll move to witnesses. Opposition. We have one primary witness in opposition who may approach the desk. That's Pam Loomis from CalCom and somebody else. You each have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, my name is Pam Loomis and I represent the small rural telephone companies that are Members of the California Communications Association. We absolutely support Senator Durazo and the sponsors intent to promote affordable broadband for all. It's an important goal.

Unfortunately, SB 424 will not help and the Committee amendments will not help as well. As you know, my clients have been serving the most rugged, sparsely populated areas of the state since the early 19 hundreds. We've got real world experience on how much it costs to provide broadband service in these areas.

Broadband service is not a build it and leave it proposition. In remote areas of California that are still unserved, the networks are subject to wildfires, snowstorms, power shutoffs during high wind, events that last for days and 72 hours, backup power requirements, not to mention all the regular customer service advertising those kinds of expenses.

Serving rural areas is an expensive Proposition, compounded by the fact that there aren't a lot of people there to spread the costs. The grant programs in this bill are only for the construction costs of building networks to unserved area. They don't cover ongoing operation and maintenance expenses.

Requiring grantees to offer a high speed plan at a price point that is not based on any economic analysis of the actual cost of providing the service is a recipe for disaster. For grantees that are not nationwide entities. They do not have a large enough customer base to spread the financial losses.

No enterprise can operate at a loss for very long. What's the point in using public funds to build last mile infrastructure if the grantees can't stay solvent long enough to provide service for more than a few years? This idea of requiring a low cost plan is untested.

The federal funding account is the first grant program that the PUC introduced. The idea and these grants are just starting to be awarded. We are not going to know the real world impacts of a $40 or $30 low cost plan until after these projects have been built and are operational.

So even though the PUC has already incorporated the low cost plan idea into the FFA and bede programs, it would be better to wait and see what happens in the next few years before putting it into statute. Therefore, the members of CalCom respectfully ask for your no vote.

Madam Chair and Members Steve Carlson for CTIA, we are the trade Association for the wireless communications industry. We also applaud Senator Durazo's passion on this as well as other issues, and we certainly agree with the intent. Unfortunately, we don't agree with the policy.

Notwithstanding the amendments, we believe this is a flawed policy that will exacerbate the already glacial pace of the PUC's actions to get this money out to where it can be used. The wireless industry and others of our telecommunications stakeholder partners all offer Low cost, income eligible types of plans.

In fact, you can see in fixed wireless some companies are offering $50 a month for whole home wifi. The point of CASIF is to create infrastructure.

To condition that on below market rates to everyone, not just income eligible, is tantamount to right regulation and is just will create a disincentive to the companies that you want to incent to do this work.

The CPUC this has been a very, very slow process, and I know CETF and we have been talking about this forever, but the problem cannot be solved by saying, okay, if we required it to do this, then you can't charge more than x. Again, the ongoing operations are not considered in this.

We have seen in other areas of commerce where rate regulation really has the opposite effect of creating a benefit. Let's work on, among other things, maybe a fair and fairly funded alternative to the ACP. We all talk about how great it was, and we agree it was great.

Maybe we should look at some of this $10 billion that is being used not just only to create infrastructure, but maybe to look at some subsidy plans that are more focused and we think will be ultimately more helpful. And we really believe it will be a better alternative for what Senator Durazo wants to accomplish.

Thank you. With that, anybody else? Additional witnesses in opposition may approach the microphone. Name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Members. Yolanda Benson, US Telecom, the broadband Association, in opposition to this bill. But we'll continue to work on the issue as there are other bills in the Legislature trying to do the same thing. Thank you.

Hello. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband, also in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Okay, bringing it back to the Committee. Before we open it to other members, I have a few comments to make. First, I want to emphasize that the expiration of the ACP is a real problem that is worthy of our attention as legislators. We have 3 million californian households that might not be able to afford broadband.

And I think one of the witnesses in opposition said, what's the point of building last mile if the companies can't pay for it at $30 for, 100 up, 20 down? The other question is, what's the point of building last mile if people can't afford to pay it at all?

And so I think we're grappling with this, a really, really tough issue, and we keep trying to find a way to do it. And that was, I really want to commend the author for working with me and the Committee on how do we really get at the root of the problem.

And one of the other things I think we really need to do to address the problem, I think subsidy programs like ACP or lifeline are the right approach. Additionally, I think using our state grant programs could be another tool in the toolkit to encourage affordability.

Both FFA and Bede have existing affordability requirements, so the Committee amendments we've suggested will align the requirements between the FFA and the IGA. Additionally, we know that inconsistency in the affordability requirements of our last mile broadband programs is not the only problem that exists within these programs. Unfortunately, there have been delays after delays after delays.

If you've watched any CNC meeting, I think I always mention the delays in the CPUC for the FFA grants. And to date, they have only awarded, that's what's been awarded of the nearly 2 billion that's out there.

And so we know their fiber only approach is going to run us out of money sooner than we connect the households that need it. And so these are the things we're approach grappling with. And Senator Rajozo was so kind and thoughtful to really include in this Bill the requirement that $1 billion of FFA grants be proposed.

What, is it the correct word? What's the, what's the correct word? The resolute proposed resolution by January 1, 2025, $1 billion. And to my Committee members who may be on the fence about this bill, that those two provisions aligning the affordability requirements, so it's very clear to all Californians in the project area what they can get.

And requiring the CPUC to have the proposed resolution for $1 billion in these FFA grants is what the state needs. And I want to appreciate the bold leadership of the author when working with us on those two things. For those reasons alone, this bill is worth it.

In addition, if you're getting state subsidies in the form of infrastructure to subsidize the last mile, we need to have affordability and the easiest way to get affordability is to make everybody in the service area who is benefiting from the IGA or the FFA grants to give them an affordable plan.

So you're not going out and you're not filling out paperwork and you're not doing a subsidy. Yes, we need those subsidies. They don't exist right now. Right. And we'll continue working to figure out how to do that. But if everybody has this option, they open it up.

And whether it's the flyer that's on their doorstep or it's what's in their mailbox, they have this option. That's what people need, and that's the ease of accessibility. That's the core behind this bill. So with that, I have a lot of opinions about this bill, and I really appreciated working with the author on it and their sponsor.

And so I'll open it up to other Committee Members for questions. Comments Assemblymember Davies, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say thank you very much for your talking points as well. And I think there isn't a person in this room that doesn't support, you know, affordable Internet service and making sure that they have this, you know, especially when it comes to public safety.

My question is, with the $30, where did that number come up from.

My understanding, $30 is part of the federal affordability program. So it was established at the federal level. And it's, when we refer to ACP, it's the affordable connectivity program of which 5.8 million Californians are eligible for. And so it's a federal program that established that particular dollar amount, which the ISP CEO, upon the signing, agreed.

And then did they do a study to make sure that that's economically obtainable? Is that dollar 30 actually per household going to be able to, are they going to be able to do what they need to do? I think that's the main thing is working together. And we're looking at where the funding is.

If you can get that last mile, and we all understand when you're looking at rural areas, it could be a handful of homes that are taking over a huge area.

And in order to be able to provide services in that, you have to have more people to be, either you need more money to charge or you need more people to fill that cost in. And I think that's really the most important thing is that, you know what? There's no stick. We need a carrot.

And as you were talking, we need a set of reasons why companies are going to want to say, like, listen, you know what? We can make this work. We want to be there. We want to be able to help. But I just feel like we all have the same goal.

But we've watched businesses where they've been basically, you know, told to. Basically, this is how much you have to pay per hour, or this is what you have to do. And economically, it doesn't work.

And they end up either shutting their business down or not offering it, or basically firing, letting employees go because they don't have the money for that service either in order to provide that for the employees. So I just, I really want to see this come to the table here together because I think it's fantastic.

And also, that $30 is that for whoever lives in that rural area, it sounds like it is, no matter what their income is. So they could be. They could be having a medium or a high income up there and still be giving the $30.

So I just want to clarify. Every program that is in the state subsidies, if you look at page four of the analysis, the IGA does not require a low cost of affordable plan. But it's price fixed at 15 with speed not specified. It has to be low income households.

FFA does require affordable, low cost plan at $40 for, 50 up, 20 down. And it's all households in the project area. Bead, which is what we were talking about, sets it does require it. It's $30 at 100 up, 20 down. All households in the project area.

What this bill is doing is trying to align them across the thing. Sure. And it's only people who are getting the state subsidy, the federal subsidy. This is not. They go into a private market. They haven't gotten an IGA or an FFA granthenne, and they have to provide this. This is not what we're doing.

We're saying if you get a state subsidy, you have to a public subsidy, you have a public benefit. And we're setting it up, this public benefit, and it's just in the service area.

I would love to be able to see this move forward. Right now, I can't support it, but I really would like to see you guys work together so that it can be economically obtainable for them to actually be there.

Make sure that they're giving 100% to those, to the residents there, especially when it comes to safety and having, you know, educational reasons. But right now, I'm going to have to hold off. Thank you. I appreciate it.

I just want to add, if I can, one more thing. You know, for the last two or three years, we have set aside and we've been told that by investing in the infrastructure that we were going to get to every single community. Before the pandemic, if you remember, was nothing. It was not a big deal.

I mean, it wasn't a big deal because most of us, you know, felt like we had it or it was a luxury. It was a cool thing to have. But from the pandemic, we learned the absolute urgency the day to day. You can't go to school without Internet. You can't. There's nothing you can do.

In fact, now the courts are saying, you know, you gotta have Internet. Everywhere you go in life, you have to have it. We were promised, taxpayers were promised that if we invested billions and billions of dollars in building the infrastructure, every community was going to get connectivity, was going to get connected. That's what was promised to us.

That's not being done. We have to take a step further. So I agree with you, if we could do it anyway as long as we got it to everybody, but we have invested taxpayer dollars in the billions and we have not reached to those millions and millions of people.

And you're completely right. We're right on the same page here. But I'd like to see those millions and millions of dollars and we're talking about a billion go to help the companies to ensure that they can do this. I think that's a big thing. So our goal is the same.

I just want to make sure it's actually obtainable. I think that's the number one. So I do appreciate that.

Okay, we have a quorum. So while we have it, we're gonna establish quorum with the Committee secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. And so. But going back to this, I actually did have a question for the opposition. Has any of the small. Have any of the small rural telcos applied for IGA or FFA grants to date?

Yes, we were early adopters on the IGA, but, you know, quickly found that the PUC CEQA process and the costs of the PUC CEQA process caused a lot of delay and a lot of additional expense. We did have two companies apply for the federal funding account, but the $40.

So the requirement for a low income broadband plan and then to get extra credit offering the $40 low cost plan for most of them was cost prohibitive. So it costs us more than $30 to provide broadband at like 253. So doing 120 takes a lot more.

I guess if you got the grant, you would be doing 120. So it just, it's, it costs more than $30 for us to serve our customers. Yeah.

I just want to point out this bill is also not retroactive. So it doesn't affect any of the IGA or FFA grants that have already been submitted. It would be only for grants that are submitted after January 12026. So we don't delay the process any further.

So this would be somebody not, this is not affecting any of the Bill, any of the grants that are going through now. It would be prospectively for any future grants. And we did that specifically because of the bead. And that's why I think this is really, really important. Yeah. Any other questions from Committee Members? Rodriguez?

Yes. I want to thank the Senator for bringing this bill, important bill forward. I mean, we've always seems like year after year, how do we get there to keep, get all Californians access to Internet?

It's a challenge, and a lot of money's been spent, and year after year, we're having some type of, be able to try to close that gap. So any thoughts on what the opposition was talking about regarding the ongoing costs in the rural area settings? I know that's very unique and challenging.

Do you think with maybe more time we can get there? I don't know if somebody can answer that.

If I'm not mistaken, and I'm going to turn to the expert, to the Committee consultant to guide me here. There are exemptions today in the bill, and I believe if it's 100,000 customer base, they're exempt. And either that's in this particular bill.

This is not a bill.

No. Then it is forthcoming, I believe, in Wilson's bill, which has the exemptions for emergency services.

So we're only going to be reviewing this bill right now. That bill got it is very substantively different than the bill that this Committee heard. Yes. So let's keep it focused on this bill and what's the contents of this Bill so we don't confuse the issues.

I appreciate your leadership on that, Madam Chair. Thank you.

All. I just want to add that if I can just. No, no, go ahead, Senator.

Yeah. I mean, I'm not in the weeds as far as what day to day the costs are, but I do know one thing is if you don't feel that you can, if a company doesn't feel that it could provide a low cost plan with these, with this threshold, then they don't have to do it.

They don't have to take the state's money. They can just set up shop and do what they do, advertise to get, you know, their business.

But what we're saying here is if you do get access to tax dollars, then in return, we want the ability, you know, we want you to provide something more and offer a plan so that it's affordable. So we're not forcing anybody. You know, they feel that they. They can't afford it.

If it doesn't pencil out, then they don't have to do it. Not all companies will do that. So I think that's really important is we're not forcing everybody to do the same thing.

Okay, that makes sense. And obviously, we always talk about affordability and accessibility and a lot of things. And obviously this is big because you can't do anything day to day without having Internet access. So how we can close that gap sooner rather than later? I mean, I know there's probably still be some.

Some issues here, but I'm looking towards supporting it. But maybe Reserve my right on the floor, see what comes out of it. Hopefully there's more time. We can work out some more of these issues, but hopefully you can continue working with opposition and hopefully we come under better ground to move it forward.

So I just wanted to say this comment. Thank you very much.

Any other comments from Committee Members?

Okay, do we have a motion? Moved by Bonta Do we have a second? 2nd by Rivas, Assemblymember or Senator Durazo? Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, again for all of your help in making sure that all Californians have access to affordable Internet. Appreciate all your work and ask for your aye vote.

So I want to thank the members for this discussion. I have an aye recommendation on this bill. We have a motion by Bonta, second by Rivas. The motion on SB 424 by Senator Durazzo is do pass as amended. And we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the Committee secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out. We'll leave it open for our members to add on. With that, I think we're going to another Durazo bill. Two Durazos in one day. Next we're hearing.

To make up for all the other days.

Next we're hearing SB 1460 by Senator Durazo. The Broadband Labor Standards Act. Senator Durazo, you may open.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, I accept the two amendments on page five of the Committee analysis. SB 1460. SB 1460 will help establish standards for access to high paid jobs and safe working conditions throughout our broadband build out. This Bill supports agreements between state agencies to advance the creation or retention of high quality jobs and equitable access to these communication jobs through quality training.

When California rolled out the billions of dollars of taxpayer funded middle mile projects, the agency is involved did not include standards that support quality job creation and access to those jobs. Instead, they referenced the basic labor laws that are generally applied to these types of projects. This is why I have been advocating through the budget and in this Bill to apply strong standards to middle mile projects and to federal broadband investments.

The Biden Administration has been very clear that federal dollars, of which we are getting plenty, are meant to impact jobs, the economy, and address poverty. They expect states to include strong labor standards and equity when using federal funds. Without stronger standards, labor standards, we may end up with a network that is incomplete or cannot be kept running.

The workers who are available may come through contractors who are not providing the best training. These are workers who run the fiber optic lines, splice the lines, and connect the broadband network to homes. And a major part of this need is for workers who can maintain and repair the fiber optic lines and network.

Once there is connectivity. We need local hires, we need to address poverty, and we need to pull from high unemployment areas to not only build out broadband, but to build out the middle class. With me, I have Christine Cleo Cabral from CWA Local 9408 and Ignacio Hernandez are here to testify in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Cleo Cabral and I'm a Member of CWA Local 9408, also a Member of the Broadband Brigade for CWA. And we're in full support of SB 1460. So CWA and its workers are on the front lines of closing the digital divide and trying to get broadband to all its communities. CWA is working nationally and also in California, both in shaping policy but also doing broadband specific work. We do the maintenance of these networks as well as long term customer service agreement.

However, we have seen other states do their build out on their networks, not providing health and safety training for their workers, frequently contracting out of state workers with little experience, knowledge, and lesser quality of network for the workers. So what we've seen, we have contractors that are not trained, don't know as much as of our experience.

They put out the network and things go wrong. It ends up, in the long run, costing us more money, more dollars to go in and replace botched work that's done. And then we don't even know if those companies are still going to be there down the road. So we want to make sure that we have high trained, high skilled workers in play. And then also ... We were talking about rural communities. I'm in Fresno County, so we were evacuated from the fires. So we saw firsthand what infrastructure means. We don't want fast, quick, cheap infrastructures. We want high quality, skilled workers with those infrastructure to make sure things are done right.

Thank you.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Excuse me. Ignacio Hernandez. On behalf of the Communication Workers of America District 9, which encompasses California, Nevada and Hawaii, we are the sponsors of the Bill. Let me just add that we've been collaboratively working with a number of stakeholders on trying to help move forward the broadband deployment funds here in California, as many of you have the last few years and continue to do so.

And it has been an ongoing push to ensure that we have labor standards, not just for the build out, but also for what we will need, a very large, well trained workforce to continue and maintain and ensure the networks are in place for a long time and to get it out to all communities. We've been having to go piece by piece in trying to get labor standards in and not always being successful.

And what we are looking to do with this Bill is to try to establish in California very strong, very well known and implementable labor standards so that when we go forward with broadband build out, maintenance and upkeep and repair of broadband services in California and the networks that we are building and will continue to invest in for years to come. We have one, the right workers. We have as many workers as we need and they're well trained and they can do the job the right way.

As we just heard, because if we don't do it right, we're going to pay for it in the long run. So unfortunately, we don't have established broadband worker standards in California yet, in part because we just haven't invested in the infrastructure or the workforce as much as in other industries. So this is the opportunity to establish those standards going forward. So we always know what's going to happen when it comes to broadband, whether it's the splicers or anyone else. For those reasons, we ask for your support.

Thank you. We'll next move to any additional witnesses in support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you to our witnesses in support. Moving on. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? You may approach the desk or mic. What do you want? Desk or mic?

It's really short.

Okay.

Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband. We have an opposed position but wanted to thank the author, the staff and the Committee for their work on this Bill and believe the amendments taken today address our issues and will adjust our position when they are in print. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name, position and affiliation only, please. Okay. Bring it back to the Committee. I do have some comments before I open it up. First, I have a question for the author. I understand there's differing opinions about whether the middle mile project would be included in this Bill because the MOU would be between the workforce board and the CPUC instead of CDT. So this, when you have the - CPUC administers only the last mile of grants. CDT has the middle mile. So this is if you're doing an MOU between the workforce board and the CPUC, you're only talking about last mile. Can you. So can you tell me how that's gonna work for the middle mile or what the connection would have been.

As I understand it's gonna cover all.

They don't cover all. CPUC administers last mile. CDT administers middle mile.

Right, just as a reference for us, for me is what we've been working on is based on the model of the MOU between the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Workforce Development Board. So that's the model we've been working on as far as the training. The training standards.

Yes. The CPUC only has purview over last mile. Middle mile sits with CDT. So if you have an MOU between the workforce board and CPUC, that doesn't include CDT at all, and CDT is doing the middle mile.

Okay, if I may, Madam Chair. I believe there was attempt in the language, and if there's clarification that's needed, I believe there's also another provision in the Bill, and I'm trying to pull it up real quickly, that talks about establishing standards.

So there's both the MOU language, but there's also another provision that would establish broadband standards, whether it's CPUC or other state agencies. I think that is referenced, and I think the way, there may be some different interpretation. If I'm wrong on this, my apologies. I think some of the language talks about grants and how the money is allocated, and then that may be construed, interpreted to make it more narrow.

So there's kind of two different provisions, one that just references the CPUC, and I believe there's another one that references kind of broader language about other state agencies. If I'm wrong on that, my apologies, because I've been running around a lot today, as all of you have, but I think that's what we were trying to get to. But the MOU part. I understand what you're saying.

Yes, I think the Bill in front of us today does not make it explicit that there's middle mile involved. And some of the middle mile is - a lot of the middle mile has already been set through either leasing, joint build, or new construction. And so I think if you wanted it to cover middle mile, that's not the Bill in front of us. There would have to be explicit things like that. And it would be my opinion as Chair that you would not want to interfere with the existing ongoing awarding and building of the middle mile. So you'd.

That's not the Bill in front of us today, so we're not going to take any positions on that. But the Bill in front of us today is a model contract. In my understanding, it's the MOU between CPUC and the workforce board. So that's something the Committee would be happy to keep working with the sponsors and the author on. We would have to go back to the Senate Committee because there were amendments that's restructured in the Senate. So we'd have to do a lot of work in a very short period of time.

Happy to have those conversations. And thank you, Madam Chair. Looking forward to it.

I also want to note the Committee amendments. Note in the analysis will address the policy issue I saw with delaying these projects furthers, given that money is already funded. Secondly, in the working group that is being called for, I thought it was important to explicitly call out Internet service providers to be included. As we know, it's the ISP that will actually do the hiring and construction of our last mile broadband project. So I'm sure they'll have a lot to contribute to whatever comes up in the working group. Are there any Members who would like to speak on this Bill? Motion by Nguyen. Second by Hoover. With that, Senator Durazo, would you like to close?

Thank you again for all your help and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, Members, we have a motion by Nguyen, second by Hoover. The motion on SB 1460 by Senator Durazo is due passed as amended and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the Committee secretary please call the roll.

SB 1460. [Roll Call].

That Bill is out. We'll keep it open for other authors to or other Committee Members to add on. Thank you, Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And with that, do I see Senator Bradford? Oh, we.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

So, we're hearing SB 1383 by Senator Bradford related to the California Advanced Services Fund Broadband Public Housing Account. Senator Bradford, you may open.

I was told never to talk beyond 'yes,' so I'm stopping. No. 213--well, in 2013, I authored the bill that established the Broadband Public Housing Account and provided 30 million dollars to help connect public housing to the Internet.

This account makes money available to public housing agencies to partner with Internet service providers or other contractors to make necessary facility upgrades in order to connect a community to a nearby broadband network. The account has since been expanded to support residents of low-income communities and require the offer of free broadband services as a condition of receiving funds.

The account will finance up to 100 percent of the cost to install inside wiring and other broadband network equipment. Unfortunately, Broadband Public Housing Account continues to be woefully underutilized.

This measure does three things: it widens the eligibility applicant pool for California's Broadband Public Housing Account, it clarifies that new Internet subscription plans can be provided for free or at low cost to the community, and enables the Broadband Public Housing Authority to act to--I should say award--grants to deploy devices that can improve existing broadband services.

1383 removes barriers to the deployment of high-speed broadband Internet in the communities that need it the most, and here testifying today is Cris Arzate, a resident service manager with the Housing Authority with the City of LA, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

So there's some enthusiasm for this bill. So you may use four minutes, but you don't have to.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. As mentioned, my name is Cris Arzate. I'm the Resident Services Manager for the Housing Authority for the City of LA. My role there is to manage all these service providers that provide resources to the 17,038 public housing residents that live in 6,140 units across 14 public housing developments.

My role also oversees the digital equity initiatives, computer learning centers, and resource development to secure capital or in-kind resources to address the need for affordable access to broadband, home computing devices, and programming. HACLA is fortunate to have an advocate in Senator Bradford, who represents 2,520, or 41 percent of HACLA's public housing, of which 97 percent are Latino and African American, 33 percent are under the age of 17, and 15 over the age of 31.

We also service about 43,700 Section 8 families, and we have an asset management portfolio of about 6,500 units where we are also expanding our digital initiatives, which also includes the build-out or creation of computer labs with equipment, distribution of free services to seniors, and programming.

HACLA has received funding from the California Advanced Services Fund, both for the Public Housing Account and the Broadband Adoption Account through a partnership with Starry Internet. Starry installed Wi-Fi infrastructure that is now owned by HACLA. 12 of our public housing developments have built out Wi-Fi networks with 44 percent subscription average.

ACP provided the opportunity to rapidly enroll residents, taxes broadband at no cost via Starry, and that was actually up for 500 up and 50 down. The accelerated subscriptions ended abruptly in February 24 and our residents were faced with the reality of having to pay a fee for services that prior to ACP were neither required or affordable.

Limited discretionary funding is an understatement for our residents. Our residents had short notice upon ACP's abrupt termination to decide to pay for Internet access each month or feed the family for one day. HACLA cannot afford to subsidize the cost of free Internet access to our residents, which would require us to qualify for PHA funding to connect our asset management portfolio or the remaining public housing developments.

While HACLA and other PHAs and affordable housers search for an ACP replacement, low-income residents will have to pay at a market or reduced rate directly from providers or search for other subsidies. However, for HACLA residents and others like ours, cannot take advantage of the PHA account funding without the inclusion of low-cost Internet language to qualify for the PHA funding.

We respectfully request an aye vote in support of SB 1383 to allow PHAs like HACLA and other affordable housers access to the needed CASF/PH account funds to continue the collective efforts to close the digital divide. Thank you.

Thank you. I think we had enthusiasm before Senator Bradford ever sat down, so if there's a motion? Was there a motion? Motion by Davies; second by Rodriguez. Okay. So with that, any other additional witnesses in support, please come to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position only, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, serving over 450 unique local education agencies and 1.3 million children, in support.

Good afternoon. Nicole Kurian with the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Amanda Gualderama with CalBroadband, in support.

Thank you to our witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? You may approach the mic, and name, affiliation, and position only, please. No witnesses in opposition; returning back to the committee. I do have one comment to make, and it's to remind us all that the digital divide is not just a rural problem.

In urban areas, a lot of the unserved population is living in affordable housing and multi-dwelling housing. If we make a difference in those areas, we'll make a big dent in the urban connectivity. So I appreciate the author for bringing forward this bill. Senator Bradford--or are there any other committee comments? Anybody want--yeah. Assembly Member Bonta.

Thank you. I just had a question. I'm trying to understand who--ultimately, we're expanding the eligibility of providers who are able to conduct the infrastructure work?

And the facilities that can receive it as well.

Okay. And so the money is going to the providers' facilities?

Yeah.

Okay. I just wanted some background on that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? We have a motion by Davies; second by Rodriguez. Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Bradford, for your presentation. The motion on SB 1383 by Senator Bradford is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call].

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members.

Okay, that Bill is out 10-0. And that concludes all the bill present. Nope. Yeah, we're gonna add on the items on call. SB 424, Durazo, and SB 1460. Durazo. Committee secretary, please call the roll.

SB 424, do pass as amended and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill is out 8-2. SB 1460, Durazo [Roll Call]

That Bill is up 10-0. Members, this concludes the work of the Assembly Committee on Communications conveyance today. We are adjourned.