Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

The Communication and Conveyance Committee is now called to order. My name is Tasha Boerner. I serve as the chair of the Committee. Joining me on the dias today are Vice Chair Josh Hoover, Leticia Castillo. Sorry, Castillo. Jessica Caloza, Robert Garcia and Chris Rogers.

We are also joined by Emilio Perez, the chief consultant of the Communications Committee, and Elizabeth Delgado, the Committee secretary as well. Daniel Ballen is the Republican policy consultant. On today's agenda, we'll first adopt the 2025-2026 Committee rules. And we have a quorum here. So thank you for everybody for running.

And move to our agenda of three items. There are no items proposed on the consent calendar. Before we get our presentation. I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping as we proceed with the witnesses and public comment.

I want to make sure everybody understands the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation decisions on the critical issues facing California. 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. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation which were posted outside the door in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much as from the public.

Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience. I know you're really concerned about that.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject being discussed today. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject to your removal or other enforcement actions. So we have a quorum. So the Committee secretary will now take attendance. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum this afternoon. We'll have the adoption of the 25-26 Committee rules and three items to be heard in the Committee. See, we have quorum. Where are rules? Okay, we have a motion for the rules of a second.

Motion by Rogers, second by Bonta. Was that right? Coloza. Sorry, I knew it was that area distracted by Assembly Member Bonta's very cool glasses. I might have to put on my own. There we go with that.

[Roll Call]

The rules are adopted. We'll leave the role open for absent Members. Okay, we're going to move on to our first Bill today. We're hearing AB 1303 by Assembly Member Valencia related to the Lifeline program. Assembly Member Valencia, you may come to the. What do we call that? Is that. It's not a dias. It's a stand. Podium. Table. Table. With your witnesses. Okay. You may begin when ready, and your witness will have four minutes to present.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Muy buenas tardes, Committee Members. I am proud to present AB 1303, which is a Latino cacreis priority Bill. AB 1303 aims to increase participation in the California Lifeline program by by specifying that a Social Security number is not needed to apply.

The Bill would also protect program subscribers privacy by prohibiting the CPUC from sharing any personal information with immigration enforcement without a court issued warrant or subpoena. California Lifeline is a critical telecommunications program that provides cell phone, home and Internet services to eligible households.

While subscribers do not need a Social Security number to apply to the program, they the existing application has deterred individuals from applying. At the same time, those without a Social Security number are fearful of government agencies using their personal information to harm them. Undocumented Californians are not the only people who may not have a Social Security number.

This population includes those fleeing domestic violence, the unhoused, or people who are waiting to be issued a new Social Security number due to identity theft amongst other Californians as well. With me to provide testimony is Adria Tinnin, the Director of Race Equity and Legislative Policy at turn.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Committee. In 2014, the CPUC issued a decision that Social Security numbers are not needed to verify identities of applicants for California Lifeline. However, the Commission has not implemented this decision to date, meaning eligible people are being denied access to the program.

Because Lifeline is funded through surcharges on all California phone lines and uses no state dollars, it's likely that many otherwise eligible people have paid to Fund Lifeline but have been prevented from enrolling in the program to which they've contributed.

Furthermore, existing protections for subscriber information have exceptions that could leave customer data vulnerable to an inappropriate access by federal immigration enforcement agencies. AB 1303 offers a thoughtful solution to these problems. First, it makes clear that Social Security numbers are not required for Lifeline but still encouraged.

Second, it protects access to federal Lifeline funding for people with Social Security numbers, which reduces cost to California Lifeline. Third, the Bill protects subscriber data from inappropriate sharing with immigration enforcement by requiring ICE and other similar agencies to obtain a judiciary warrant from a California judge.

Lastly, this makes such changes to California Lifeline compliant with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. To the extent that it applies, AB 1303 enables a diversity of vulnerable populations to access essential communication services at an affordable rate.

People fleeing domestic violence, people who are unhoused, or victims of identity theft are all populations who are unable to share their Social Security number, either because they do not have access to it or because it's unsafe to do so.

Many of the things you need to do to rebuild your life in these types of situations require reliable phone access to access health care housing, apply for benefits, pursue legal action, and interact with the courts. Furthermore, increasing access to essential communication services improves economic development.

Civic engagement enables people to call 911 and to receive emergency notifications such as evacuation instructions during wildfires. Access to communication services can actually save lives and therefore benefits everyone in California. For all of these reasons, we strongly urge an aye vote on AB 1303.

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

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, District 9 in support.

Okay, moving on. Are there any witnesses and opposition in the hearing room seeing none. Are there any witnesses that just want to do a me too Name, affiliation, position only? Okay, Members, let me bring it back to Committee. Assembly Member Rogers.

First of all, I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think we all are rethinking or having the conversation about what our data means, how it can be used, particularly right now in this moment in this country, what that data means for vulnerable populations and communities and so I want to commend you for bringing the Bill forward.

I also want to thank the chair for bringing up this Bill in budget earlier today. There's a trailer Bill that the administration's been working on specifically for this program that I think misses some of the importance or the nuance of the policy discussion around it.

I just wanted to add on how impressed I was for the discussion that we had in that Committee as well. Going to be very supportive of the Bill.

And I know you've got folks on the Subcommitee that are pushing to make sure that the Administration comes to work with you to make sure that the policy concerns are addressed in any potential trailer Bill, or vice versa. But just know that that discussion happened this morning.

Motion by Lowenthal. Second by ... Caloza.

Thank you, Chair Boerner. And I just wanted to also echo Assemblymember Rogers remarks and just thank the author for putting together this Bill and of course turn and the sponsor of this Bill. Our immigrant communities really need support during this time of crisis and the attacks from the federal Administration.

So thank you for putting together a thoughtful Bill to make sure that we protect more people and ensure that they get to utilize their own taxpayer dollars. So. And I would be happy to co author if you will have me. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. I think that was a Lowenthal co author. A silent co author. I've never seen a silent co author in seven years, but that was the first is that was a Rogers sign language co author. Oh, that's where you go. There you go. You could just ask to be heard, too.

I want to thank the Assembly Member. Oh, yes, Lowenthal like to be added. As a co author.

Good job using your voice. It's a fun Committee. You have to. We do some heavy things, but it's good to be fun. I want to thank the author and the sponsors for bringing this forward. You know, when we were in the budget Subcommitee today, there are lots of issues with Lifeline.

And when we were looking at this Bill and we were reviewing it for this Committee hearing, I was shocked that the CPUC is delayed nearly a decade in making this change.

And when we think about a public agency making a decision then taking nearly a decade to implement, I think it really epitomizes some of the problems that we have with the CPUC's implementation of it and where really the Legislature is called to step in and act to keep all the target audience of this Bill safe.

I think, you know, making sure that we're thinking about it not only in terms of undocumented, but in terms of domestic violence victims, those who have experienced identity theft and those who are unhoused is a great way of thinking about it because I think it does get pigeonholed into one thing or another. And we have a motion.

What I say Lowenthal Second by Ahrens. And with that would the author like to close and enjoy Has a do pass recommendation. Yeah.

Thank you.

With that, the motion is AB 1303 by Assembly Member Valencia is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. The Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. We'll leave it open for additional Members. And with that, I think the agenda had me first, but I think that's rude. So would Assemblymember Bonta like to go first? So we're hearing AB 1271 by Assembly Member Bonta related to broadband pricing and speed data. Assembly Member Bonta, you may open.

Thank you Chair, for your kindness. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I want to thank the chair and particularly the Committee staff for working so diligently and closely with our office to be able to move this Bill forward. I accept the Committee amendments.

AB 1271 requires broadband Internet service providers to report key pricing and speed performance data to the Department of Consumer affairs and ensures that the public has access to that data in line with the California Records act in a way that is useful, reliable and privacy protected.

In addition, the amendments add legislative findings and declarations that acknowledge that multiple factors can influence broadband and speed, not all of which are under the provider's control. These findings reaffirm that consumers reasonably expect to receive the performance they are sold and that transparency is in the public interest.

The amendments also clear protections for personal and proprietary information and provide flexibility through a standardized reporting template developed by the Department of Consumer Affairs. California is investing billions in broadband infrastructure, yet many families still pay too much for service that does not meet their needs. Consumers are often shown one price, but pay a different bottom line amount.

Monthly, they promise, are promised certain speeds in their purchase plans and then receive far less. We don't have access to consistent data about what Californians are actually receiving or paying, but what we do need is to have a broad coalition of advocates who represent consumers who are asking for the same thing, affordable and reliable Internet.

Without that data, consumers can't make informed choices, local governments can't plan smart investments, and the state can't identify and address affordability gaps or deployment failures. Here to testify today is Patrick Messick, Director of Oakland Undivided.

And Patrick, you have four minutes.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bonta, Chair Berner and Members of the Committee. I'm Patrick Messick, Director of Oakland Undivided. Here today as a proud Member of CADE, the California Alliance for Digital Equity. It's time we understood the digital divide through the lived experience of California's consumers, particularly in low income communities.

Oakland Undivided partnered with Oakland Housing Authority to conduct in depth interviews and standardized site based speed tests at 17 different affordable housing communities across Oakland. San Francisco Chronicle documented me conducting a speed test showing a West Oakland resident and foster mom, Ms. Brandy, only receiving 10% of her advertised speeds.

Following the story, the incumbent monopoly provider requested a site walkthrough. They repeatedly demanded the exact address before the visit and miraculously, when the cable provider accompanied me to Ms. Brandy's house, her Internet was several times faster than in any of our previous visits.

Without any hardware upgrades or changes to our testing methodology, her Internet became so fast, in fact, that the following month the cable company charged her an additional $30 because she had exceeded her monthly data cap. Ou ran nearly half a million speed tests at over 15,000 locations across Oakland.

We found that over 75% of Internet connections we tested never reached the speed threshold to be considered served. Most alarmingly, the connections in our highest income zip code with the largest population of white residents was nearly 10 times faster than in our poorest with the city's largest population of people of color.

The Fresno Digital Inclusion alliance, one of our partners in CAID, has replicated these findings with over 15 million speed test measurements. 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.

In La, the advertised cost of Internet service is systematically higher in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. A team at the UC Santa Barbara studied more than 35,000 residential addresses in LA and concluded that, quote, wealthier areas receive more bandwidth for less money.

Last year, Chinese for Affirmative Action in San Francisco published a report showing that 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.

Ou, as part of CADE, is proud to support AB 1271 because ensuring essential services like broadband are affordable, requires reliable, transparent information and because we all deserve, at a minimum, to get what we pay for. Thank you.

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

Hi, Good afternoon. Kathy Mcbride on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy and Support.

Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of NextGen California and the California Alliance for Digital Equity and support.

Good afternoon. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of turn, we support the Bill in concept. We have a couple of suggested tweaks and we look forward to working with the author.

Okay. Any witnesses in opposition? No witnesses in opposition. As anybody in the. Want to just do a me too to the mic. Name, position? Our name affiliation position only, please. None, huh? Okay, I'll bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion by Rogers, second by Hoover. Any discussion? Any comments? No.

So I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And I completely agree with the bill's intent. Ensuring transparency of speed and pricing and assuring customers get what they pay for. There's already some transparency on marketing and availability. And this Bill takes a step further to collect data on performance. And it's reasonable, but very, very complicated.

Standardizing and measuring speed performance in a standardized and consistent manner. Manner is a difficult undertaking and there are various impacts that may affect speeds experienced by a customer. The next Committee will give further consideration to the role of the Department of Consumer affairs with that Assembly. But with that, people have to get. You know, I think it's.

There's a saying you get what you pay for, and this is also the pay for what you get. Right. And I love that balance and I really appreciate the Assembly Member for championing this Bill. So with that Assembly Member Bonta, would you like to close?

Yeah. I want to appreciate Chair the time that you spent with me walking through this, the intention of this Bill and helping to kind of clarify some of the.

Of the ways that we need to ensure specificity so that we achieve what we want, which is transparency and pricing and the ability for us to collectively know what our investments in broadband and what our.

And for our consumers to know what they're getting so that we don't have the kinds of stories that just allow for a lot of murkiness in terms of what we need. And at the end of the day, Californians are struggling with their ability to pay rents, to be able to pay for essential utilities, including broadband.

And we want to make sure that every single dollar that they spend counts and provides them with the service they. With the service that they are Thinking that they're getting. This is a truth in advertising Bill.

It's smart public oversight and empowering California families and communities with the information that they need so that they can get what they're paying for. And I appreciate your continued commitment in making sure that we can do that in this Legislature. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. And with the Committee amendments, this Bill does enjoy a do pass recommendation. The motion is AB 1271 by Assembly Member Bonta is do pass as amended and be referred to the Committee on Business and Professions. Will this Committee secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out and we'll leave it open for additional Members to add on. And with that, I'll give it over to my Vice Chair when I present.

Okay. Whenever you are ready.

Thank you Members for listening with open ears as I present my Bill to establish the Department of Broadband and Digital Equity and the Broadband and Digital Equity Commission. For those of you who are new, this is one of your first probably Tasha B. Specials. You'll see many of them this year.

This Department would serve as the centralized state Department for broadband and digital equity activities within the state, which currently are split between the California Public Utilities Commission, the CPUC and the California Department of Technology, the cdt.

California is one of the only states where essential broadband programs are split between two agencies, and it has not necessarily led to better outcomes. In our research, we found only two other states, New Mexico and Connecticut, that do what we do. Let me be clear.

This Bill is not about punishing any agency or scuttling the work that has been ongoing for the last several years. I appreciate the work of the CPUC and CDT in making the progress that they have been implementing in our state broadband's programs. Nonetheless, despite the effort and attention, we have to acknowledge that there have been persistent challenges.

To solve the structural problems, we need a structural solution. And that's what exactly AB 693 is about. Under this Bill, the state's existing broadband programs initiatives will be consolidated under one agency beginning July 1, 2027.

To oversee this agency, the Bill also establish establishes an 11 Member broadband Digital Equity Commission, which would include Members with backgrounds in broadband, digital equity, labor, the industry and tribes. The Commission would not merely be advisory, but would have actual power and authority to make decisions about grant funding, infrastructure investments and the department's work.

From what I observed within the current structure of our broadband programs, there are three persistent challenges that we see difficult public participation, confusing decision making procedures and poor interagency coordination. In tandem, these three persistent problems snowball into much larger and visible challenges such as funding delays, project delays, lack of stakeholder participation and overall lack of accountability.

While we have consistently raised these issues through legislative hearings and CNC in the budget process did it this morning and persistent challenges remain. Unless we start thinking now about what the next three years, the next five years, the next 10 years will look like, we may never consider an alternative.

We have the power to shape what this looks like for California and send a message of accountability that we are holding for our constituents. I'm committed to broadband for all, for consumer protection and for the goals I know that we all share on this Committee.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote and support and will leave my presentation there. I welcome any questions and comments.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support?

Good afternoon. Vice Chair Member Sam Nash on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill in the room? Seeing no one. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any Members wish to comment on Bill have a motion from Assemblymember Aherns, second from Assembly Member Bonta Calossa. That is hard. I know right?

When you're sitting there you think it's one, it's the other and it's like I don't know if it's the same tone of voice. I don't know what it is to separate you.

Let's see. Chair. See no comments. Chair Boerner, would you like to close? Oh, I'm sorry.

I just have a. First of all, I'm so proud of you for bringing this forward and I'm proud of our state for supporting this type of legislation because it's not just about the individual communities that are underserved. It's about our broader economy. We all benefit when individual communities benefit. And I just have a question for you.

Can you talk very briefly about what types of equity the Commission will seek as it obviously you know varying communities but is also geographies. Is it historical inequities?

I didn't think anybody was gonna ask any questions. Let me go back. Remember what I put in the Bill. So the the Commission will consist of 11 diverse Members with representation from industry, community, nonprofit and labor. The Structures, the structures based by the on the CPUC. And do I remember if I specified anything further about regional allocations? I don't think I.

Are you open to that? Is that something else in your heart?

I'm open, yeah. I'm open to it. I mean I wrote the Bill myself like we could do whatever we want. I think what's important is if you specify it too much, if you say you want.

If what I think is important is not so much the geographic diversity but that you have industry, community representatives, nonprofit and labor, you want those first. And it's only 11 Members. So if you say you want two community reps representatives, one Northern California, one Southern California, how are you going to do inland urban. You get really complicated when you do that.

So that would be the one thing is we could talk about how would we manage to make sure that we have the diversity of opinions to make sure that the decision making is fair and accurate and reflects the needs of California and all the different actors in the broadband telecommunications space.

That's the one thing I would say is we have to make sure we balance that out. And that's sometimes difficult. But I think when we look at the CPUC and commissioners where we want to. I know that's probably the intent of parts of the Legislature.

If not all the legislatures have more geographic diversity in the CPUC commissioners, that's because there's five and they're all appointed by the Governor and this is different. So I don't know if that was probably too detailed of my answer, but yeah.

Absolutely. I appreciate the explanation. In addition to the Bill and I'm supportive of the Bill. Is there going to be required follow up ballot measure language to square the differences in what we're asking the CPUC then to do do moving forward if we roll all of the broadband into this other office.

So currently telecommunication services are is in the constitution and I have introduced ACA 9 that removes telecommunication services from the CPUC jurisdiction, puts it in statute and then adds affordability to the constitutional requirement of the CPUC. But that's a Bill that we'll hear at a later date.

Great, thank you.

I just want to thank the chair for continuing to advocate for greater alignment and also oversight by this Legislature.

I think we've seen with the MMBI and the conversations that we've had both in budget sub hearings and in this Committee and the oversight hearings that you've done that there have just been a lot of opportunities for, for greater coordination and oversight in a timely manner.

And I believe the move to be able to have that happen within the consideration of in purview of one agency will or Commission will allow us to be able to do that in a way that we haven't been able to do. So I thank you for creating an opportunity for the Legislature to have fewer headaches.

Thank you. And that's the intention is if we look at other states, they pull them together because you automatically, when you separate jobs among different agencies will get friction. And that friction can be more or less.

And right now we're seeing, even though I think it's the intention of both agencies to not have friction, we've seen it in the delays of the FFA funding to the point where the middle mile projects are all rolled out. And we don't even know if those middle mile projects are going to connect to last mile.

We hope at some point they will, but that's the type of friction that we're getting in this broadband space. And that's just one example. We had the Valencia Bill here earlier where the CPUC has taken nearly a decade to roll out a very simple procedural change and we have to have now legislation for that.

If something is purely under the control and oversight of the administrator, control of the Administration, that makes our job of oversight easier and we can then better legislate for the, the quick resolution for our constituents.

Thank you. Any other comments from Committee Members? Okay with that, I will just say that I will be supporting the Bill today. There are some things in it that, you know, I would love, I would love to see. Anytime we're talking about creating a new agency, I would love to see us reduce in some other agencies.

So, you know, I would love to see some sort of reduction in some of these roles in other parts of our government. So that would be one suggestion I would make. But definitely we'll be supporting the Bill today.

Can I answer that?

Yes, please do.

So the idea is that you take the telecommunication broadband division of the CPUC and the cdt, the broadband telecommunications portion of the cdt, and, and combine them into one agency. So the idea is not that you're creating a new agency and these two still exist.

The idea is you're bringing it together with those synergies of the existing staff, the existing competencies, and then you streamline the rules and then you have a governance structure that's much more effective. That's the idea of the Bill. So it is a replication or duplication of all that it is bringing it together.

Sounds good. And you know, honestly, I'll definitely keep an eye out for the approps analysis, obviously, but would love to see a revenue neutral approach if we could for taxpayers. But obviously understand, you know, some of the constraints there. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. We will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It so the final vote for AB 693 is 9 ayes, 1 no. And next we're going to add Members. We're going to call through the other two remaining items. AB 1303 Valencia and AB 1271 for add ons.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 8 to 2.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 99 to 0. Members. That concludes the work of the Assembly Committee on Communication and Conveyance today. We got it in under an hour and with that we're adjourned.