Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

The Communications and Conveyance Committee is now called to order. My name is Tasha Boerner, and I serve as the chair of this Committee. Joining me on the dais today are Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens and Assemblymember Chris Rogers.

We are starting today as a Subcommitee because we are lacking a couple Members who are in education, and so we will wait for them to act on voting on any bills.

We're also joined by Emilio Perez, the chief consultant on the Communications and Conveyance Committee, and Elizabeth Delgado, the Committee secretary, as well as Daniel Ballen, the Republican policy consultant. On today's agenda, we have four items. There are no items on the proposed consent calendar.

Before we begin 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 everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. You guys know how I love efficiency and fairness.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoints they express. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we have an effective deliberation and 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 us 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 from the public.

Within the limited 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.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by me, 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 the hearing.

Please be aware that violations of these rules may be subject to your removal or other enforcement actions. Okay. We do not have a quorum, so we are starting noticing the absence of quorum. We will operate as a Subcommitee and proceed to item one. And we will interrupt the proceedings if we should establish quorum. Okay.

Our first item today is AB 470 by Assembly Member McKinnor, related to Carriers of Last Resort. Assembly Member McKinnor, you may open when you get to the dais. Thank you.

May I?

Yes. Oh. Or no, I'd have to have one too to call me.

Okay. Get myself settled here.

Yeah, get yourself settled, and we have--I think you have two witnesses, Mark, and I'm going to try to do it--Ghilarducci from Emergent Global Solutions and Terri Nikole Baca from AT&T. You will each have two minutes at the appropriate time after Assembly Member McKinnor.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Good--is it afternoon? Yes, it is. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I would like to begin by accepting the suggested committee amendments noted in the analysis as author amendments, and thank you and your committee so much for--and your committee staff so much--for their hand and work on this important legislation.

I really, truly appreciate it. Members, the January 2025 fires in Los Angeles County destroyed over 18,000 structures and forced the evacuation of over 150,000 people. Hold up. Just one minute, committee members. See, I got your attention. Copper lines phones, these old phones. Hello?

Hi.

Hi. These copper line phones did not save one life or one structure. No copper landline customers were able to receive a single emergency evacuation text alert as the fires raced towards them. No copper landline customer whose home or business burned down or who were evacuated by fires were able to use that technology to connect with family members, neighbors, their insurance provider, or necessary emergency services. None.

Copper landline phones have served the public for generations, but no longer meet the modern telecommunication needs of the 40 million people that call California home. Just as telecommunication needs are evolving, it is time for our telecommunication laws to evolve.

AB 470 creates a framework to protect not well-served areas of the state while facilitating investments in modern telecommunications to ensure that 99.9% of all Californian households will continue to be able to make affordable, reliable telephone calls and connect with emergency services when they need it.

AB 470 puts consumers first by guaranteeing that no household will lose access to telephone service and that no populated area in California will be granted Carrier of Last Resort or COLR relief unless the California Public Utilities Commission can certify that an area has at least three comparable priced alternative phone services, one of which must be a landline, and meets a minimum connectivity standard.

AB 470 puts public safety first by requiring additional private sector investments to help modernize our first responder network to keep Californians connected in their time of need.

AB 470 put California's future first by requiring telecommunication providers to make investments in the next generation of telecommunications technology across the state instead of having to spend millions of dollars annually to maintain an obsolete technology that prevents us from being globally competitive.

AB 470 also includes a robust public challenge process to ensure that every populated area of the state will continue to have access to affordable, reliable phone service.

Members, customer demand is driving this technology evolution with less than 5% of California still using copper landlines and most residents using either a wireless phone services or a fiber-based VoIP phone service for their telecommunications needs. Before I close, I would like to briefly address a few concerns raised during this process.

First, I appreciate the concerns of CalBroadband and I am committed to working on their concerns moving forward. I am also disappointed to see my labor sisters and brothers from CWA opposing the bill today. Be clear: I am and will always be a labor champion.

I will always fight for workers, which is why I personally met with CWA leadership in my office several weeks ago and requested their input on how to to protect the current and future workforce impacted by changes to COLR.

CWA ignored my request until their lobbyists met with my staff late last week and informed my office that they intentionally did not request any amendments and then turned around and opposed AB 470, claiming that the bill does not have enough worker protection.

Again, I am a worker champion and I will always be a worker champion, so I am still open to meet with CWA and work on these issues. AB 470 is an important--is an opportunity to bring business and labor together to modernize California's telecommunication infrastructure and CWA's opposition claims.

My door remains open again and I am here to meet with them. Members, AB 470 will change telecommunications in California and it will change it for the better. A more connected, globally competitive economy is needed now more than ever in California. Let us not be limited by a reliance on obsolete technology--hello--of the past. Let us look to the future and build a future that will keep all Californians connected. Thank you, and now I will have my witnesses speak.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Terri Nikole Baca, and I'm Vice President of Legislative Affairs for AT&T California, the largest Carrier of Last Resort in California. I would like to thank Assembly Member McKinnor and Chair Boerner for their leadership in working on this important issue.

From the start, we've been guided by a core set of principles that we collectively agreed would be the backbone and integrity of our legislative process. Number one: no Californian will be left without reliable phone service in their homes, including 911 services.

Second: this is a process over time, and any transition will be a phased-in, multi-year approach. Third: any transition will be collaborative, customer-driven, and transparent. These principles have been our North Star, leading us to the version of the bill in front of you today which includes provisions that reflect key feedback.

The outcome is a thoughtful and responsible process that cares for different communities' needs. I want to be clear about what this bill does and what it does not do. This bill does not turn off anyone's copper landline service. What this bill does do is establish a plan, a plan through which COLRs can begin migrating well-served legacy telephone customers from an antiquated network of the past to modern communication services available today and in the future.

This bill does not leave any customer behind. This isn't about taking something away, it's about ensuring that we have a plan to migrate Californians to superior services. We're committed to helping our customers through this transition and we worked hard with the author and the chair to get to a bill that does just that. I thank you again for your time today and request your support in passing AB 470.

Well, great. Thanks. Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Mark Ghilarducci, and I'm the immediate former Director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and Governor's Homeland Security Advisor, serving from 2012 to 2023. As Director under both Governors Brown and Newsom, I've worked with you and many of your colleagues before, during, and after multiple disaster events, and to strengthen public safety, emergency management and emergency communications to make more resilient.

Some of the most innovative initiatives that were established during my tenure included modernizing California's 911 system, implementing California's Earthquake Early Warning System, and establishing both the California Cybersecurity Integration Center and the Wildfire Threat and Intelligence Information Center.

Much of what I done--as I did as Director was to insist on innovation, modernization, and investment in building resiliency in our public safety communications capabilities which are essential to appropriately responding to and recovering from disasters.

I'm here today to support the public safety need to transition from an outdated landline system to a fiber-based networks in an orderly, phased-in approach. Early in my public safety career, landline phones were the primary mode of communications and public safety relied on two-way radios.

Today, nearly all 911 calls originate from wireless phones, and public safety agencies utilize data-driven platforms and tools to assess threats and to respond to emergencies. Progress and innovation continue to demonstrate that analog systems are a less reliant method for assessing emergency services.

Additionally, sending modern emergency notifications and information such as Wireless Emergency Alerts, FEMA's Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems, informations on--information on evacuation routes, or real-time fire mapping data over a landline simply isn't possible. No one should be left without access to communications or 911 services, especially during an emergency.

Thank you.

So the new provisions have--they've been incorporated in the bill, ensure everyone will have a phased-in and appropriately--no, won't be left behind--

And I'm supportive of this bill. Thanks.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to additional witnesses in support. You may approach the mic with name, affiliation, and position only, please. Don't be afraid. You can come on up.

Hi. My name is Mary McCarron. I represent APAPA, Asian Pacific American Public Affairs, and I support this bill.

Oh. Hi. I'm Masha Golangco, and I am a small business owner and a community partner with APAPA, and I passionately support the AB 470.

Thank you. Name, affiliation, and position only, please.

And I'm Marsha Golangco.

Thank you.

Justine Murray, on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, in strong support of AB 470. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Rosa Velázquez, President of the Alameda County Latina Chamber of Commerce, in support of AB 470. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Khadijah Greer with National Action Network, Sacramento, Youth Division, and we support AB 470.

Good afternoon. My name is Marily Mondejar, Filipina Women's Network, CEO. I support AB 470.

Hi. My name is Demar Greer. I'm also with National Action Network and the Youth Division, and we are in support of AB 470.

Hello. My name is Angela Sarah Adams. I represent APAPA and in support of AB 470. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Lydia, and I represent APAPA, and I support the bill. Thank you.

Nico Molina, on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anthony Butler Torres with the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, in support. Thank you.

John Marco, National ACE, in support of AB 470.

Good afternoon. Ahmad Holmes, President and CEO of the California African American Chamber of Commerce, in support of 470.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Troy Belton, CEO of AFGM Consultants. I stand to support AB 470 in solidarity with National ACE and the CalAsian Chamber. Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Stacey Tate, Project Director with the CalAsian Chamber. I'm here on behalf of National ACE and CalAsian Chamber. I support AB 470, and thank you for your time.

Hi. My name is Sofia Lopez, and I am the CEO of SL Compass RE LLC, and I am here on behalf of the National ACE and Asian--CalAsian Chamber, and I do support the AB 470. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. I am Valen Lo, an intern at APAPA, and I am here supporting AB 470. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Councilwoman Laurie Gonzalez from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, a federally recognized tribe and sovereign nation, and on behalf of my people, we support AB 470.

Hello. My name is Marilyn Cachola, Chief Operating Officer for APAPA, representing 28 chapters throughout the state, and we strongly support this bill.

Good afternoon, committee. My name is Sonny Mehrtash, National President at APAPA, and I support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee. My name is Patrick Curzon, also with APAPA, and I support this bill.

Hi. My name is Erik Park. I'm here on behalf of National ACE and CalAsian, and I support AB 470. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Loraine Scott. I own Acheson Wine Company. I'm here on behalf of National ACE and CalAsian Chamber, and I support AB 470.

Hello. Kelvin Chan with Asian Pacific American Community Center. I'm here in support of AB 470. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Rex Tabora. I'm the Executive Director for Asian Pacific American Community Center in San Francisco. I'm also a member of the San Francisco Chapter APAPA. I am here in support of the AB 470. Thank you.

Hello. Caroline Villarreal with APAPA Solano County Chapter, in support of the AB 470 bill.

Amy Fabi with APAPA Solano Chapter, Chinese American Association of Solano County, and the Fil-Am Community of Fairfield, Suisun, and Vacaville, and we are in support.

Hello. Hello. My name is Alan Wei from Davis, Yolo County, the chapter of the APAPA, and also a business owner serving the wine industry. I support the AB 470 bill. Thank you very much.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Manny Martinez. I'm the Office Coordinator at APAPA, and I strongly support this bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Anette Smith with the Impact Group Enterprises, and I am representing National ACE and the California Asian Pacific Chamber, and I am in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Sydney Kushida, and I am a Program Manager for Electrifiy California, on behalf of the CalAsian Chamber and National ACE. I support.

Hello, everyone. My name is Marc Evans. I'm the founder and CEO of EV Plus PV, and on behalf of the California Asian Chamber and National ACE, I support AB 470. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Rocco Pallin, on behalf of Equality California. I support AB 470. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Harris Liu. I am the franchisee for McDonald's and under Golden Arch Enterprises, and I do support 470. Please do not pick winners and losers. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Daniel Romero, Wealth Manager at Legacy Financial and Director of Marketing at APAPA. I support this bill, AB 470. Thank you.

Hello. I'm Jessica Cross. I am a small business owner. I represent APAPA Elk Grove Chapter, and support AB 470. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Mary Liu. I'm the National CEO for APAPA, and we also are McDonald's operators in Solano County, Yolo County, and Sacramento County, and we definitely support AB 470. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Moira Topp, on behalf of Orange County Business Council, in support.

My name is Jonathan. I'm with Pegasus Bakery. I'm a small business owner and also a community partner with APAPA. I support AB 470.

Hi. My name is Cynthia. I'm also with Pegasus Bakery & Cafe and also a community partner with APAPA. I support AB 470 because as a small business owner, we need reliable, fast Internet and--

Thank you. Name--I know it's hard when it's your first time, if it is. Name--

Cynthia Aung-Lam.

Affiliation and position only. Thank you.

Okay, so my name is Cynthia Aung-Lam, I'm with Pegasus Bakery & Cafe, and I support AB 470. Thank you.

Charles Wright, on behalf of Yuhaaviatam of Sam Manuel Nation, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Darrell Roberts, Roberts Family Development Center, representing more than 1,000 families that we serve in Sacramento County. We support AB 470. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jade Melendres. I'm one APAPA intern, and I support bill AB 470.

Good afternoon. My name is Zil Morgan, APAPA intern, and I support this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Samandeep Car. I'm representing APAPA, and I support this bill.

Angelo Velasco with the Chinese American Association of Solano County, in support of AB 470.

Andrew Govenar, on behalf of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, in support.

James May, on behalf of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, in support.

Chris Gallardo, on behalf of Enterprise Rancheria and the California Valley Miwok Tribe, in support.

Ben Golombek with the California Chamber of Commerce, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Jordan Lindsey with the Arc of California, representing Californians with intellectual and developmental disabilities, in support. Thank you.

Peyton Boyer with Boyer Financial, in support.

Keilen Fong, representing the CalAsian Chamber, in support.

Hi. I'm Kevin Phan. I'm a small business owner in Sacramento, and I support.

Thank you to the proponents. And we'll now move on to additional witness--or, no--thank you to the witnesses in support. Moving on. There are two witnesses who have registered opposition. We have Ignacio Hernandez from TURN and Tracy Ryan, Senior Policy Advocate, Rural County Representatives of California. You may approach the bench. Not really a bench. Table. You'll each have two minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Regina Costa, on behalf of TURN. TURN's core principle is that everyone who requests home phone service should be guaranteed to receive service, and that is exactly what the COLR requirement does. AT&T's goal is to remove this mandate.

Neither AT&T nor any other phone company should be allowed to pick and choose what neighborhoods to serve and what neighborhoods to ignore. We cannot have a digital divide and a telecom divide. AT&T is laser-focused on eliminating the COLR requirement--

I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you. We have quorum. It's always a very difficult thing to establish quorum on busy days, so I'm going to go back and ask the secretary to establish quorum.

[Roll Call].

Okay, we have a quorum, and we're going to restart you so you could get a little bit of extra time for letting us interrupt you. Please go ahead.

AT&T is laser-focused on eliminating the COLA requirement so that it can shrink its service territory. That is not hyperbole. This was articulated last year by AT&T's chairman when he said he wants to shed territory, turn out the lights, and walk away.

If there is no legal obligation to provide service to all, then neither AT&T or any other alleged alternative provider will be required to actually provide service. During the informational hearing, Madam Chair rightly made the distinction between an alternative provider who may provide service and those who will, by commitment or mandate, provide service to all.

AB 470 does nothing to obligate any provider to actually provide service to all. Second, AB 470 does not maintain the COLR mandate in areas that are not well served. The bill makes explicit reference to that. By January 1, 2027, the CPUC must approve a plan to end the COLR requirement in areas are not well served.

There is no authority for the CPUC to continue the COLR requirement for customers without good alternatives. We know that AT&T will use all of its resources to lobby for a plan that is as easy and quick as possible with as little evidence or public input as possible.

Even if there are no good alternative services, AT&T will waive around AB 470 and demand that the CPUC give AT&T a way out of its COLR obligation. This COLR requirement needs to be updated and the CPUC is doing that as we speak. In fact, they are holding a public hearing in Santa Rosa this afternoon.

TURN believes that we should pause any legislation and let the CPUC process continue. That process should be moved forward before any bill. We respectfully ask for a no vote on this bill.

Thank you, Chair Boerner and committee members. My name is Anne Cottrell, District 3 Supervisor in Napa County, speaking on behalf of RCRC in respectful opposition to AB 470. I'm here today because many residents in my rural district have reached out personally to let me know how worried they are about AT&T's plans.

Two residents in different communities--their names are Margot and Ray--shared very similar stories. Both are active members of their neighborhood Fire Safe Councils and they understand the need to prepare and communicate in emergencies.

Their neighbors know that each of them has a landline and when the power goes out due to a wildfire or a high wind, public safety power shutoff, or simply a downed power line, their landlines are the only way for the neighborhood to communicate with the outside world.

Both Margo and Ray told me that AT&T has already asked them to give up their landlines, so AB 470 is really a threat to them. First, the bill allows AT&T to abandon basic telephone service even when communities are unprepared or underserved, which puts rural and wildfire-prone neighborhoods at risk.

Second, as you heard from TURN, the bill prioritizes AT&T's convenience over both public safety and equitable access to communications infrastructure. Third, the bill forces the CPUC to begin transitions away from landline service, even in areas where that service is still critical, like Margot and Ray's situation. Finally, AB 470 mandates a phase-out of COLR obligations.

It ignores service quality, accessibility, and community need, instead imposing an arbitrary countdown clock. In closing, I know we all want--and I include AT&T here--to get to a time when we have alternatives to copper landline that are affordable, reliable, and available for all Californians and that are resilient in the face of disasters and power outages.

When that happens, you as our state leaders and the CPUC can work with our local communities on a safety-focused, public-first, not provider-first phase-out strategy that moves us away--excuse me--from copper lines, but we don't have those alternative technologies fully developed yet and we certainly don't have them implemented in every corner of the state.

Now is not the right time, AB 470 is not the right mechanism, and importantly, AT&T is not the right architect to design and oversee its own exit from COLR. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay, with that, we--hold on. I'm on the wrong page. We are going to move on to--I was in the right place. Any additional witnesses in opposition, you may approach the mic with name, affiliation, and position only, please. As a hot tip, you could just say oppose or tweener if you want. You don't have to say the whole AB 470 thing. We know that's the bill.

Okey-doke. Shayna Englin with the California Community Foundation, the Digital Equity Los Angeles Coalition, and the Alliance for Better Community, in strong opposition.

Liliana Aide Monge, Director of Digital Equity for UNITE-LA, in strong opposition.

Horacio Gonzalez, on behalf of the California Alliance for Digital Equity and NextGen California, in strong opposition.

Amy Cortina with UNITE-LA and Digital Equity LA. Strong opposition.

Lee Miller, an affiliated person, opposed.

David Azevedo, AARP California, in respectful opposition.

Marc Ellis, President, Communication Workers of America Local 9413 out of Nevada, opposed.

Kevin Miller, Fresno Coalition for Digital Inclusion and Connect the Valley Coalition. Strong opposition.

Adrián Sandoval, GPSN and the Digital Equity Los Angeles Coalition. Strong opposition.

Oscar Magaña, Everyone on and Digital Equity Los Angeles. Strong opposition.

Shirley Lam for Insure the Uninsured Project, in strong opposition.

Carrie Biggs Adams with the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians Local 51. I'm based in Calaveras County. This is hugely important to us. Strong opposition.

Fidel Andrade, CWA Local 9333 out of the Central Valley, Merced. I oppose 470.

Mark Batista, President, CWA Local 9404, including Napa, Solano and Contra Costa County, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Marisol Neria, Organization Civic Mi Ambro Del Alianza, California para Lequida Digital. And for the opposition.

Diana Figueroa, Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative. Strong opposition.

Yes. Good afternoon. Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Media Alliance, we are in opposition.

Hello, my name is Pedro Maltinaro. I represent Communication Workers of America Local 9408, based out of Fresno. And we strongly oppose. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Victoria Saek Bright, Building Resilience and Inclusion Through Engagement, youth-facing nonprofit out of Ventura County in strong opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yvonne Melton, CWA District 9. Strong opposed.

Hello, my name is Ola Gonzalez with Innovate Public Schools with part of the Digital Equity LA Coalition. Strong opposition.

Good afternoon. I'm Tarina Woodson Lindo. I'm with CWA Local 9400. We represent members from northern to south Southern California. We stand in strong opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California and the Boards of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Cruz, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Mark Newberger of the California State Association of Counties, in opposition.

Madam Chair and Members. Kobe Pizzai with the town of Hillsborough, respectfully opposed.

Jeff Neal, representing the County of Yolo, opposed and didn't get a letter in, but just took position today. Also the County of Contra Costa.

David Quintana, on behalf of the City of Hidden Hills, in opposition.

Ian Nitaross, Communication Workers of America Local 9000412 in Hayward, California, strongly opposed. Thank you.

[Unintelligible] Li, with the electronic Frontier foundation, in opposition. Thank you.

Steve Duty, Local CWA, Santa Claus County, Merced County. Strongly oppose the bill.

Jorge Rivera, Healing and Justice Center, part of the Digital Equity LA Coalition. In strong opposition of 470, a bill that promotes profits over people.

Mike Seals, CWA Local 9412, Hayward, California. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Richard Platt of Mill Valley. Strong opposition to this bill.

Dennis Doxy, CWA Oakland, strongly oppose this bill.

[Unintelligible] Local 9421, and opposes bill.

Jasper Wroten, CWA Local 9419. We strongly oppose this Bill. Most of our area is rural and we do not have options.

Thank you. Name, position or name affiliation and position only, please.

Paulina Chavez, everyone on strongly in opposition to 470.

Good afternoon. Karen Lange on behalf of the boards of supervisors in the counties of Humboldt, Marin, Shasta, Siskiyou, Mendocino and Solano. All in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the boards of supervisors of the counties of Kern, Fresno, Nevada, San Joaquin, Butte and Kings. In opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dr. Carla Lopez Valdez with Para Los Ninos. We strongly oppose 470.

Good afternoon. Robert Leighton with everyone on in opposition to 470.

Hello. Fatima Flores, Lagunas with Digital Equity LA and opposing this bill. Thank you.

Hi. Christian Cardenas with Inner City Struggle. Strongly opposed 470. Thank you.

Hi. Khalil Humphries with Para Los Ninos. Strongly opposed. Thank you.

Jason Orozco, Communication Workers of America and Fresno. And we are strongly opposed to this Bill.

Good afternoon. Bob Guzman with United Parents and Students. I strongly oppose this bill.

Katie Castro, UC Davis student. I oppose this bill.

Okay. Seeing no further. Are there any tweeners in the room that I missed think this is not an issue with tweeners. So I want to thank you to the witnesses bringing back to the Committee. Are there any Members who would like to speak on this bill? Assemblymember Ahrens.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I know that previous iterations of this bill in one form or another have been brought to the Legislature over the years. There's a lot of stakeholders engaging on both sides on this issue. I'm wondering if and you sort of touched upon this, the author, during your opening remarks.

Can you sort of fully flesh out to the Committee the Types of engagement and, you know, what conversations you've had with labor, public safety, nonprofit community groups can so I can sort of get a better understanding?

Yes.

I mean, we have the sort of opposition letters and support letters, but we'd love to kind of get a more fuller understanding of the engagement that your office has engaged in for this.

Yes, we met with some of the organizations, some folks just put in their opposition. So that's why this is the First Committee. And I am open to working with everyone. So if you haven't had an opportunity to come to my office, please, please come by and talk with me. I'd love to meet with you.

I'd love to have everybody at the T so I can hear all voices. But I have met with several of the orgs and I've also met with the Committee chair and I've met with AT&T and I met with labor and everyone came back to the table.

I've taken, I think, like, I don't know how many pages of amendments. I've taken lots and lots of amendments on this bill to try and make sure that every, that really the consumers were protected. I met with labor once.

I really wanted them to come back because I want to work with them so that I could put them in this bill. I think it's important, as you guys heard, I am a labor champion and it's important to me that labor comes along with this bill.

And so I'm hoping that I get an opportunity to work with them again. But I have been bringing people together and no one got everything they want because that's what happened. Just really quick, I went to Norway and it changed my life. I got to see business, government and labor really work together.

And that is, I came back with that. And that is how I'm addressing every one of my bills.

Thank you. So we certainly would like to see those three groups come together more often than they do in Sacramento. So for everyone watching, please do that more often. You mentioned sort of the amendments that you've taken my understanding, you know, certainly when the first iteration of this bill wasn't quite comfortable with supporting it.

But you've mentioned you've taken, I think, two or three rounds of amendments. Can you sort of talk us through that process?

Well, I met with your chair. You have a really, really thoughtful chair when it comes to the consumers and the Committee staff. And they've been doing this for a very long time. And so as we walk through this bill, we really kept the consumers in the forefront.

The consumers and being able as I'm looking at it as well as not just I hear people call it an AT&T bill. I want to call it let's rebrand this. This is the Tina Mckinnor Upgrading Telecommunication bill for the next couple of decades for California.

Like we, we're also looking at how we're going to upgrade our telecommunications here in California. And it's going to be very, very expensive. And so we want to bring everybody up to par. But we just back and forth.

I met with the rural community who actually is cut out of this bill because if you don't have three other carriers that'll give you phone service, if you don't have two carriers with wireless line and one with a hard line, AT&T will not be pulling out as being the carrier of last resort.

So our rural community, they're actually not affected by this bill at all. So I hope that pulls them off because they're not actually going to be affected by this at all.

And so we just went back and forth and met with everybody so that we could try and make sure well, the bottom line is nobody make sure that nobody be without phone service as we upgrade telecommunications.

Thank you, Samuel. I wanted to establish that because that's what I've been that's what I've been seeing as well. I would like to move the bill today and would love to have more conversation, but I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Assemblymember Bonta.

Well, thank you. Certainly. I think every single year I've been in the Legislature, I've run a bill related to digital equity.

And many of the people that spoke up in opposition have been the champions of that work, I think because we are always aligned in the idea that we need to ensure that we're providing this essential services that are telecommunications and Internet related to every single individual. And I know, Assemblymember McKinnar, you are also a champion for equity.

And at the heart of all of my questions that I am going to ask, I am going to know that you know that I know that about you and know that you are an author who will continue to work on, on any piece of legislation to make sure that that is proven true. Absolutely.

So I have a couple of a few, I'll say 4333 or four concerns that I just want to get very granular on for the sake of our kind of continued understanding.

The first relates to the Communication Workers of America and the fact that ultimately with this move it will accelerate what I think has been a long standing practice for many years that has caused that particular labor group to not have the resources and level of employment that they should.

My understanding is that there's been a divestment of sorts in the direct employment of workers who support copper lines and a move to move more to have vendors and outsource providers do that work. When we are talking about completely having this move happen, it means that we will have workers who will not have jobs.

And that is incredibly problematic to me, especially when we haven't set up an opportunity for there to be just transition that is explicit and a part of the legislation adequately spelled out. The amendments that have been made, I think still from my perspective, are fall short of that desire.

And I wanted to just make sure that we are clear around addressing the concerns of our labor siblings in making sure that should this happen, there is an opportunity to make sure that they have the ability to get considered in the legislation.

I'm sorry. Absolutely. Yes. That's why I met with them. Because for me, I would never want to see, see them lose their, their, their job. This is a lot of infrastructure work is going to happen in this bill.

We talk about AT&T pulling, you know, removing cholera from some areas, and then when they do, they're going to go in and put in fiber. There's lots of work here. And so that's why I met with CWA is because I want to ensure that their voice is in this bill. But I don't want my voice.

I don't want to assume what they need. I want them to come and talk, come back with, talk with me and talk to me and let's work it out so that I can hear and put their voice in this bill.

Just like I did with the chair, just like I did with the Committee, just like I did with AT&T. I don't want to just put in something. So that's why it's very short, because those are what, that's what I put in there.

But I want to, in this next amendment, you see, I want it to be CWA coming in with me and sitting down with me and letting me understand what their needs are, because I don't want to assume that that's how I do business. And so I have them and I have them in mind.

It's going to be a lot of infrastructure work that they could do and they can get trained for. From what I understand, when I met with them, they said that they are already training in fiber and doing the fiber work, that they're not just doing copper, that they're now training their folks in fiber.

But I want to make sure that that's in the bill. But I don't want to put their work, you know, use my words, I want to work with CWA and I'm inviting them today on record to please, please come back into my office and put your, put your words into this bill.

Yeah. And I just want to acknowledge that it could be that they're. Hopefully that will be the case. But should we get information back that this seismic industry shift will result in something that is not really amenable to our labor partners? I want to share that.

Just from my perspective, I will not be able to support this bill in its future.

So I invite you, Assembly woman, to come and join me in those negotiations so that we can make sure that they happen. I would really invite you to join us in those negotiations as well, so that you can know that they're happening.

I appreciate the invitation. The other piece I think that I would just want to touch on is this idea of the role and authority of the CPUC and the fact that there are components of this bill that essentially preempt the the already existing process for the CPUC.

And I would like more information about the kind of the timeline associated with their existing kind of authority and purview and the language that I think is still in this bill that is softer, from my perspective, around what their current authority is.

It moves this into a space of them supporting a transition plan as opposed to them having authority over the CPUC. And the chair knows more than anyone else that I have a lot of challenges with CPUC.

But when we are talking about private actors stepping away from an obligation, I think it is incredibly critical that we don't weaken their ability or authority to have the kind of oversight that this Legislature at this moment in time, barring standing up another entity has over this procedure.

So how, given the fact that the language is very soft, uses the softer language around transition plan, what are your thoughts? And maybe you can have either their proponents speak to that. And I also want to just have on record the opposition speak to this point as well. What would be the path forward around that?

Because I think at this point, what is in the bill is insufficient. Okay, I'm going to start with. I'm going to have my expert.

Sure. Thank you, Assemblymember. Terri Nikole Baca, Vice President, Legislative Affairs for AT&T. To answer your question, we are absolutely engaged in the current rulemaking taking place at the PUC.

That being said, given what you said, the seismic shift in telecommunications policy that's in front of us, we do believe that this is an issue that should be considered and move forward by the Legislature, an elected body.

Given that this is a plan that needs to be customer driven, that impacts constituents, that impacts the public in terms of a public benefit and a telecommunications policy, this really is something that should be considered by the Legislature. So AT&T will continue to remain very engaged in that current rulemaking.

But as far as the proposal in front of you, there remains a large role for the PUC, and I can speak a bit, although they're a little new to me. I've learned quite a bit about the new Committee amendments as well.

The chair has instituted an even larger role for the PUC in these, which the authors accepted, but essentially to those areas that are not well served. And I know the opposition mentioned that AT&T is abandoning underserved communities. That is simply not true.

So to areas that have less than three alternative providers, including a wireline provider, there has to be a wired to the home option. If there is not a reliable wired to the home option included in those three other providers, those customers will fall into a not well served category which will be considered by the PUC.

They're well equipped to address areas that have unique complexities, calling in witnesses, expert testimony, conducting their public participation hearings. They're equipped to address those areas that are complex. And so the bill allows for the PUC to have a role in determining the path forward for those areas that are not well served.

That being said, with the Committee amendments, there's also a very robust role for the PUC in the challenge process. So even before any notices to customers are sent to Kohler Co. Customers, there's actually a requirement now with the Committee amendments where the Kohler has to notice anyone in the public that lives in a Kohler territory.

So this is a notice of intent for Kohler relinquishment to anyone who lives in our territory. And that notice is also able to go to the PUC. So the PUC or the company can oversee this sort of third party verification process.

There's an entire process that takes place even before we send our notices to customers so that the public is aware of what's going on and the PUC has that role. Finally, I will say that the Committee amendments add what's called a Tier 2 advice letter requirement into the bill.

Originally, the bill didn't have a process or a Tier 1 or Tier 2 advice process to approve COLA relinquishment. It was just a notice that the company would send to the PUC to approve it.

The bill as written now actually Requires a Tier 2 advice letter and the PUC to approve a Kohler relinquishment and that tier two advice. And I don't want to get way in the details, I actually have a little sheet here if you'd like to see yourself. But the Tier 2 advice does require staff approval.

It's ministerial approval, but it's still a staff approval. So the PUC has the authority to deny that COLA relinquishment via the Tier 2 advice letter in well served areas. So the Committee amendments add quite a bit to the role of the PUCA here.

And ultimately the Kohler Company cannot get COLA relief without that ministerial review and staff approval of the Kohler relinquishment request.

Yeah, thank you. Just I love to ask Regina to follow up on the specifics, but just. At a high level. You know, we have our legislative analysts. Participating in that CPUC hearing over in Santa Rosa today. And I think the vagueness that we have here about what CPUC's ultimate role is under AB470 is concerning.

And I appreciate the point about a robust role in challenges. I'm concerned about the ministerial framing of it, and so I would turn it over to Regina to comment further. Yeah.

The CPUC's role as this Bill is written with the amendments that we've received is very, very limited. If a customer wants to challenge whether an area is well served, they can make that challenge.

But then it goes into the hands of a third party reviewer and the CPUC chooses that reviewer from among options provided by the telephone company. There is no mention whatsoever of any kind of evidentiary process.

Certainly the CPUC is a much more robust process where people can raise questions about what does well served really mean under the Bill. It's not clear what well served really means. You can say it serves an area that doesn't guarantee that the customers who are currently receiving service all receive service.

There are many instances where cable companies have, for example, have not built out their entire cable network to serve all telephone customers. There are many cases, and we've heard from thousands of Californians where wireless service is not reliable. So where in that process are those issues considered? They are not.

The CPUC process referenced by the author in these amendments takes place for areas deemed not well served. When AT&T applied to eliminate its Kohler obligation, it designated roughly 90% of its territory as places that were already well served. So where is the evidentiary process to address that threshold question? It's not there.

Yes, it is. So. So I would like to ask the author to one, clarify her intent on the areas in the Bill. There's two sections. There's zero population, zero customers. And then there is clear definition of what is considered well served.

Of households in the territory. So not customers. Households. Could you clarify what's your intent for those that don't fall into those two categories? And then can you clarify the process again for the well served? Because I think we made you take amendments that define it very, very, very clearly. You did. Yes, she did.

Well, well served. Number one, there's a definition for well served if you're well served. If you have two other folks that offer you communication, telecommunications, and one that offers a hard line to your home where you can have a hard line phone that's well served. If you don't have that, then you're not well served.

And the wireline is. It's lifeline.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the amendments expanded that definition of. Well served as well to include a. Requirement that a provider must subscribe or offer lifeline services. So that's a subsidized, affordable Internet and wireless program. And also that there must be a comparatively priced alternative.

So not only will the alternatives be available and one of them has to be wired, there has to be a comparatively affordable one. And one of the providers must be a lifeline provider.

And if you're not well served, they're not removing cholera. So there's areas that are not well served that this Bill doesn't even pertain to them at all. We have to remember that.

I think that everybody, I mean, I think that my opposition is skipping over that point that like, if you're in the rural area and you don't have these options AT&T. Kohler would not be pulling out of your area. You're carved out.

Can I just clarify though, when you say well served, does that mean a wired option to the area or does it mean to the individual households?

Every household. Each household. Household.

So well served equals household.

Every household.

Yes.

Yes. Because we want to make sure that no one goes without a telephone line. So if we look at just like well served a map in this area. But your chair, she doesn't play. She said household. So we're talking about each person's home.

I know my chair doesn't play. No, she doesn't play. Nor do you have any Members.

I think what I'm hearing from the opposition is they're reading ambiguity into that. So that may be a point moving forward to the authority to clarify what happens if you're not in zero population, zero customers, or you're in what is defined as well served.

Right.

Might just be a note.

You guys are going to come meet with me too. Right.

And I think the other point that I'm hearing is a very significant point around making sure that there is a robust process that has kind of evidentiary findings and. And clarity around what that is so that we have individual customers with the ability to be protected as opposed to just having to report something and take the word.

For the investigators who are selected by the telecom to. To make that determination. Having spent now three years in the world of well served and all the things and all the maps, it would be very important, I think, for me and others to see that we have a very strong robust process around the evidentiary components that is not just ministerial.

So that is the point of the Committee amendments. Yeah. That there is a 30 part, a third party verifier and any household in that territory can complain that they're not well served to either the third party verifier or the CPUC. We wanted to make sure that there's that.

And you guys all know how I feel about the CPUC. So me doing this. That's how important this is.

And then post that though what I'm hearing also is that there needs to be a clear understanding of what the process for receiving and understanding and investigating that complaint would be as well for both. Thank you. Those individuals.

And then I just for the sake of time and saying to my other my colleagues, I will ask my last question in this area which is that there is also language in this legislation with amendments that relates to kind of a letter of intent to invest. We sat through a three hour hearing on this.

What I heard loud and clear was essentially that there would be the AT&T as the carrier of last resort is spending $1.0 billion annually to be able to have to continue on with their obligation to be a carrier of last resort.

We talked about the fact that position resulted from essentially the monopoly that the company had that put them in the position to take on that responsibility. Now with them moving away from that responsibility and also just want to clarify that it's moving away from the responsibility.

The argumentation that was made was largely around the dwindling resources and infrastructure to be able to support Copper in particular. I hear that for sure. But I also hear $1.0 billion is going to be saved a year by this company, which is real.

And I want to ensure that if there is that level of savings for relief of that obligation that those resources are very clearly directed, redirected back into our communities to be able to support digital equity.

I believe that what is in print right now is very vague in terms of ensuring that we have that level of assurances from relief of this particular Kohler obligation.

That is one that given all of what is happening at the federal level, the continued inequities that we have, the reality that you can be a carrier of last resort and engage in other formats that are not technology formats that are not Copper and that that is in the wheelhouse of AT&T and kind of seeps into other providers obligations in the broadband space.

I think that there's a lot to be figured out there. So I would also ask the author to.

Well, in this moment in time just kind of speak to that and then also see if you are committed to ensuring that there is a lot more specificity in what that transition of investment means for our communities that continue to be.

So at this point we have as they pull out from households, households to households. Right. As they pull out, they're going to one to one, they're going to reinvest with fiber, putting in fiber optics in underserved areas. So that's one to one households. And I mean we can go farther.

That's as of now, again, this is a working, this is a Bill and work. This is a huge transformation we're taking on. And so the Bill hasn't stopped here.

I know that as I go through each Committee and I hadn't had a chance to sit with you, I wish I would have had a little more time, but I was trying to go through with your chair first and my office is open to hear your ideas and so I'm willing to work with you from there.

Yeah, yeah. That's where we are. But to invest in our infrastructure, I do want to make sure that AT&T is going to reinvest in California's infrastructure, especially in the underserved areas.

I appreciate that. And it's very similar to akin to kind of in the health space. It's why we have the California Endowment where there was an obligation that was a public obligation. There was an opportunity for that entity to move into a private space.

And there was essentially a very clear understanding around the, the, the, the leave behinds and investments that would continue to be made with that, with that shift.

And so again, I think it's unclear, I know that you will continue to work on that and I will say that at this point with great hesitation, I am going to be supporting this Bill today.

But I want the folks out there to know that should we not see the kind of progress and specificity that I think this Bill and this seismic shift in industry deserves as it moves forward, I'm going to be sister speaking out against this.

Well, thank you so much. AssemblywomanI understand and I know that the reason why I'm really interested in making sure that the investments happen is because I know that we have a $22 billion budget shortfall and California can't do it.

And so I want to make sure that our infrastructure is invested in because just keeping copper lines is not going to work. Really and truly the reason why people said why would you take this Bill, Tina? Ms. Mcenter, you are a progressive. Why would you take this Bill?

Well, I know that only 5% of people have home lines in their houses. The next 10 years, there won't. I can see that no one will have this next generation of adults. They don't have home phones. They just don't. They don't have home phones, and that will completely disappear.

And so I want to be engaged in making sure that California has the infrastructure it needs for the future when no one has these home lines anymore. I know that California can't. Right now, we can't build the infrastructure. So I want to make sure that that infrastructure is financed as AT&T is moving out.

I'm not saying completely, but I'm saying as they move out and make their savings, I want them to invest in California. And I want to make sure that workers have jobs. And so that is my promise to you. And I'm open to work with you on that.

Thank you. We have a couple Assembly Members who think this is not the Communication Conveyance Committee Members who keep coming in. So it's like a very fun day. Everybody wants to be here, apparently. I think we have Assemblymember Rogers and did I see that? Assemblymember Rubio, you also wanted to ask some questions? Yeah.

Well, first of all, I want to start by thanking the author for trying to take on an issue that's hard and just really want to appreciate that you're coming at this from a perspective of trying to solve a problem and not trying to push one way or the other, but really trying to be open to something that works and especially on a really tough issue.

And so I trust your values. I know where you're coming from. And I just want to say thank you for that. We've had many opportunities to talk. We had a chance to talk about the way that this impacts my district, in particular, for folks who don't know I represent from Santa Rosa to Oregon.

And to say that we have a lack of investment in infrastructure in my area is an understatement. Right.

And I think that one of the challenges that folks in my community have and every county that I represent is opposed to the Bill, is while it sounds great to have their infrastructure upgraded and to have 1925, or, excuse me, 2025 infrastructure, they don't even have 1980 infrastructure in some places that they feel like they've been left behind, that they feel like whether it's wired or wireless access is difficult.

And I think what you're trying to do in the Bill is a good thing, because I do think that whether it's today or shortly down the road. It's more of a question of how do we replace this and with what not whether we do, because there are better ways to connect people.

But my community doesn't feel like they're going to be at the front of the line. They don't feel like the infrastructure that they currently have is adequate, let alone giving opportunities for that to go away. Right.

And if I could try to articulate sort of the concerns that I hear from folks, you know, we learn in political science about this, this theory called the wing walk theory of public policy, where when it's a critical theory, it's like somebody's gripping the wing of a plane and they're only going to let go of their handholds that they have on the plane when they are 100% certain that the handhold that they are grabbing is going to hold them.

And for many folks in my community, they feel like they don't have that handhold yet. So what I'd like to do is I appreciate all of the amendments that you've taken. I know that the Chair has been working very hard with you on that.

I need to talk to my community about that before I could come up on the Bill and make sure that they feel like that handhold that we're trying to give them is adequate before they feel abandoned, not just by the industry, but by their own representatives in Sacramento as well.

And would invite you to come up and have a conversation with some of our supervisors to talk through what additional concerns that they might have after these amendments that you've taken to see if there's a way for us to get there, for that commitment, for that infrastructure piece to be there.

We're working on the Middle Mile project and people are stoked. It is real investment for California and rural communities that feel left behind. And I think that there could be a way for us to have this conversation that reassures the community and provides value and benefit to the community.

But right now I think they're just fearful of what the future of this looks like. So again, want to, want to thank you for your commitment. Want to make that offer to sit down with you with supervisors and talk about what that could look like. For me. It's not a no on Kohler.

It's not right now, not until my district feels comfortable and like they're taken care of. But thank you.

Senator Rubio.

Thank you. My apologies. We're all ping ponging today from one Committee to another. And I just got out of, for me, one of my hardest spells ever. And I know the extensive time that it takes to sit with stakeholders.

So, Assemblymember McKinner, I know how hard this is and it has been for you, especially because you're trying to balance both sides. And I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, appreciate all of the amendments that you have taken.

I've spoken to the opponents today and I just want to tell them that I do hear you, but I do trust that Assemblywoman McKinner has done everything in her power and will continue to do that to make sure that everybody feels secure and safe as to what's happening.

I kept reading and reading and reading the Bill and the amendments by the chair have made it better. Is it perfect? No Bill is. And that's why we're here, so that we can discuss the issues that are important to all of our districts. And I know that we have your commitment. I've never known you not to work.

So I do expect that the commitments that you are making today will continue moving this forward. I really do appreciate everything that you have done and that, you know, both sides have done to make sure that, that at the end of the day, our people are taken care of.

And I think this is an example of, you know, moving out of your comfort zone to make sure that we are doing these for the right reason. So thank you for, for the Bill. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Anybody else? Oh, Assembly Member Garcia,

Do I say. Thank you, Assembly Member? I appreciate the conversations about this Bill. This definitely want to say probably the toughest vote so far as an Assembly Member, but so far, but I, I do appreciate the conversation.

And like I shared earlier, you know, I, I don't, I don't have a good cell phone reception in my home. I'm in a fire prone area. So honestly, I probably should have a landline in case the power goes out.

But I know that there's people that only, they're only their landline is the only one so that they depend on. And so, and especially a lot of seniors. And so like Senate Member Rogers stated, you know, making sure that they're comfortable about what's going to happen. You know, there's a lot of folks here in opposition as well.

So obviously they don't feel that comfort quite yet. And so I will have to vote no, respectfully.

And I suggest Assembly Members, since you get bad cell reception and you're worried about emergency, please go tomorrow, get a hard landline in your home. Thank you.

Okay. Assemblymember Caloza.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author, to everyone and my colleagues on this Committee for their Very thoughtful remarks. This is obviously an issue that we care deeply about. Thanks to the leadership of our chair. You know, we really had an opportunity to learn to listen about this issue.

The informational hearings had a chance to hear from the CPUC, the Public Advocate's office, through industry, through the workers. And this is a very complicated topic.

So let me thank all the stakeholders who have come to testify today on both sides, our advocates, our workers, and especially wanted to thank our Committee staff and our Chairwoman, who is still working in the middle of this, just how much progress has been made.

I know that took hours of blood, sweat and tears from both our chair and also our author because I know you care deeply about getting this right. About getting this right.

I wanted to echo a few points that I really care about that I've heard about from my community, District 52, which represents Los Angeles, South Glendale and East LA, some of whom are represented in some of the advocates that came here today.

I think for me, the pieces that I really wanted to talk about and what I'm balancing as we think of where to vote on this Bill, because this is a really big Bill to consider, is the interest of the public.

How do we continue to ensure that no community, no household is left behind, especially if they are low income, rural, especially our senior. And for me, because I represent a community with a big immigrant population, especially folks who don't speak English as their first language.

How do we ensure that what's laid before us ensures those protections and that we have those guardrails in place? Can I answer your first question or I haven't asked. Can I finish my statement and then I'll. Because I'm not going to remember. I just want to. Okay, go ahead. The piece about the workers in CWA and labor.

I did want to echo Assemblymember Bonta's comments around ensuring that we don't leave our workers behind.

And I know you have been trying to get CWA to the table, and I echo your sentiment that you shared in your statement that I hope they hear this testimony that you want to work with them, that they have many people here on the Committee, myself included, that want to ensure that we have those labor protections in place if a transition were to happen.

And so I say that again. CWA, if you are listening, please come to the table and talk to Assemblymember Mckinnor and this Committee because she has an open door and we want to make sure that our workers are not left behind.

And I know Assemblymember Bonta shares in that the other pieces that I wanted to touch on, where I want to see more serious progress on this Bill is really some of the things that I know you and I have talked about, Assemblymember Mckinnon, and thank you so much for your work on this and some of the pieces that haven't already been addressed by other Committee Members.

I sat in this exact same chair starting at 9am this morning or 9:30 in the housing Committee. In addition to ensuring that we make sure that our communities are connected, the other crisis that we're also facing in California is also around our housing crisis.

The piece that I would love to see, really considered, and I know you're going to continue these conversations with us, is really the role of what future development could take place in these areas that no population and no people to serve right now, but there could be we have so many housing issues that we are trying to tackle through a series of bills to fast track and streamline housing.

And I think that's one of the things that I haven't heard or seen addressed in some of the really great amendments that have taken place.

So just wanted to note that the other piece that is really important to me that was already touched on is again, just our piece around vulnerable communities and especially as it applies to the challenge process, which is the means in which the public and anyone impacted by this can really ensure that they are protected and ensuring that we have those language access capabilities for anyone challenging any issues that they may be having with their service.

Some of the other ones I know have already been addressed around the grants as well as the infrastructure. But those are just the additional points that I wanted to make.

But I wanted to, you know, thank you again in your work on taking on a really hard issue that we all have, as you can see, only a few, a few opinions on. And again, thank you to our chair and to the staff for the tremendous work that they have made on this.

And so, you know, I plan to support the Bill today, but I would like to see some serious progress on some of these issues that I raise, especially when it comes to protecting our immigrant and vulnerable communities.

And I know that, you know, to quote what you said when you came to testify is that you want to get this right and I know we all share in that promise. And so thank you to Assemblymember Mckinnor.

So everybody that knows me, this is my third year in the Legislature and all I've done is fight for people. And again, we're going to change this from an AT&T Bill. This is a Tina Mckinnon upgrade telecommunication Bill for the next couple of centuries. Now we talked about language.

Right now by law you can request your language, your bills in your language. And if you do that, your mail will come in your language. So customers can now request their Bill in their language. Right now. If you call customer service AT&T has a translator that can translate for you. Right now. That's happening right now.

So those are some of the things that are already in law that are already happening right now. The rural community, as I said before, is cut out of this. They're not. The rural community is not a part of this because they're underserved.

We talked about the workers housing for example, all of the housing that's going to be rebuilt in Eaton and in Pacific Palisades, if they have copper, it would be fiber. No one is going they're not going to go in and upgrade a brand new structure and put copper pack. They're going to put fiber.

And so anything new is going to get the new the new. If you're a developer and you go and develop some infrastructure, you develop a home and it's an area you're going to have to come in and put in electricity. They put in fiber. They're not going to put in. They're just not.

That's what we were looking at the new the houses that have to be rebuilt in Eaton and in Pacific Palisades and that's when we found out that those new homes that are built are going to have new infrastructure. They're not going to have the old infrastructure.

But I look forward to working with each and every one of you guys and hearing taking in the ideas and all the brains in Sacramento, all from the legislators and for my for the advocates for our opposition. I thank everybody for coming in today and taking the time to care about this really important Bill, our telecommunication infrastructure.

And my door is open and I'm welcome to hear from each and every one of you guys and look forward to working with you.

Could I make a couple of comments?

Well, usually we have witnesses only respond to questions that are here. So does anybody want to ask a question? Because usually we don't just have spontaneous.

Is the question about is the comment about the fiber? Yeah. The alternative technologies available?

That is one of them, yes. And rural counties with respect to the fiber, there's no guarantee that that fiber would be deployed in the places where the Kohler obligation was removed. Let's take Assemblyman Rogers district, where I live, if lines are removed, the carrier of last resort obligation is gone. The copper lines are no longer available.

They say, well, you could get Comcast or you could get wireless. That's well served. But there's no guarantee that if those lines are gone that the fiber is actually going to be invested there. Okay, that's one point. Point two is the rural areas are covered because it depends on what you call well served.

You could go to the Russian River and have three wireless carriers offering service in that territory. And if it's based on their coverage map, it says they're well served, it says they're there. One of them might even offer some kind of a lifeline plan. But you know, if you go around the corner, it doesn't work.

The rural community is not, is not in this Bill for sure.

So I would just like to respond to that. The definition of well served is very clear in this Bill. It is two wireless and one wireline. And I added a provision and they call it Tasha's doomsday scenario. Because that's what actually I should have was meant to do in life, was create doomsday scenario for people.

And this says, should the wire line be removed, the carrier of last resort will come back in within a 10 year period. That's right. So I have a backstop built into this.

And everybody knows as, I mean, I would never say I don't play because that sounds, I don't know if I could pull that off, but, but I have no problem. I think the, the points that have been made in this Committee are very valid. This is, we have to get it right.

We've worked really hard with the author on definitions because the definitions and the process are very clearly laid out. And I think the author is known for working hard. She's an excellent author. She's going to work. I will say that CWA did not come in and talk to us either.

So I invite CWA to come in and talk to me, talk to the author. Sorry, we have no comments from the audience. So when we talk about how this Bill will go forward with labor, I am a pro labor person too. In fact, I was in the German equivalent of cwa. I understand.

So we want to make sure that as you pull out, there's reinvestment in the communities that need it. That was a really important part of this Bill. It was an important part of this Bill that the process is laid out, that we defined what alternative basic service was. So if you don't define it, you can't measure it.

If you can't measure it, you can't monitor it. All those things are in this Bill. And we will continue to watch and work with the author as this Bill goes through and that it deviates from the intention of this Committee. Myself, we will pull it back into this Committee. You all know that's how I am.

Because we have to get this right. Generations of California rely on us getting this right. So my closing comments to the author, or maybe I'll let the author close and then I'll say my comments. Why don't we do that?

Would you like to close? I thank all of you guys for all of your suggestions, all of your questions because it just makes this Bill better. And we want to make sure that every single household in California has upgraded telecommunications so that they can talk, be able to call in for an emergency. That's the most important thing.

That they can call 911 and that they can call their family and friends and that they can communicate with everyone. And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I want to thank the author for working so hard for restructuring a Bill. There was a lot of work that I think a lot of people may not see in this audience who oppose this Bill.

But there was a lot of work and a lot of amendments taken to make sure that we get it right. And I believe everyone can agree that universal service is our guiding principle. But there are multiple ways to get to universal service and competition could be there instead of mandates. That's why the Bill is narrowly tailored.

The Committee amendment significantly revised the Bill to ensure that there's a robust public process to ensure that no households, not no customer, but no household is left behind. And this was a key important thing for me.

The new process will give a role to the cpc even though I don't like them to approve the request for COLA relief based on criteria established by us. We are establishing the criteria that they're going to use.

And the fact is, many customers, as the author said, have naturally moved on from basic service provided over decades old copper telephone network. This Bill establishes a transition plan. And this is the First Committee of this Bill. It deserves to move forward. And with that I have a recommendation for an aye vote.

We had a motion by Ahrens, a second by Castillo. This Bill enjoys a do pass as amended recommendation. Oh, I'm supposed to go here. The motion at AB470 by Assemblymember McKinnor is do pass as amended. We refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will Secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

AB 470 has passed. And we'll leave the roll open so that other Members can add on their votes. With that, we're going to change up the order of the next bills.

We're going to change up the order of the agenda. We're going to go item four, Item three, Item two. Because item four, if it passes, needs to be immediately transmitted to Une. So with that, I'm going to hand over the gavel to Assembly Member Arts.

I need a pet. Pretty much all you need to do. Is just read the stuff it's in. It's italics. You don't have to roll that. Okay, just read this word. Ping pong again. How do I turn on the mic? Elizabeth, you doing all right? Which one's turning on and off? All right. Never chaired a Committee before. Is this what this is like? CMC's exciting.

Next we are going to be hearing AB 1530 presented by Chair Boerner, a Committee Bill. Chair, you may open thank you Chair.

Thank you Chair and Members for allowing me to present AB 1532, authored by the Communications and Conveyance Committee. First of all, I accept my own Committee amendments and the analysis. Appreciate myself working with me on this. The Bill is a Committee omnibus Bill that touches several policy areas. First off, the Bill extends the funding and surcharge authority of two existing programs.

The Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program, which provides communication assistance to disabled Californians The TNC Access for All program, which provides access to wheelchair accessible vehicles on TNC platforms like Uber and Lyft. Both programs are existing programs and this Bill will not raise costs on consumers. The TNC Access for all program collects 10 cents on every TNC trip.

The DTP program is funded through a flat rate surcharge on telephone bills. The current rate is actually being reduced to $0.90 per line beginning May 1st pursuant to the CPUC which periodically adjusts the rate. The 90 cents is split between the DDTP program and other public purpose, infrastructure and affordability programs administered by the CPUC.

The Bill also contains accountability provisions for the California Public Utilities Commission, including provisions requiring the CPUC to appear at hearings at the request of the of a Chair and also adopting rules regarding Commissioner attendance at their own hearings.

While I acknowledge that these Committee this Committee has primary restriction over CPUC matters given that some of the issues we have seen in CNC related to the CPUC. There's inherently an overlap with utilities and energy. I appreciate the Chair understanding this dynamic and support the efforts of the CNC Members to implement new accountability measures.

Unfortunately, earlier this year we had the experience of the CPUC flatly refusing to accommodate a request for a Commissioner at our annual Broadband Oversight hearing. Only after I organized a letter signed by the Committee Members did the CPUC send a letter confirming that they would send a Commissioner.

We received the letters two hours before our hearing started and the CPUC characterized the issue as a misunderstanding. To avoid any misunderstandings in the future, it is imperative the Legislature have the inherent authority to call Commissioner when necessary. We also learned that the the CPUC commissioners often do not regularly regularly preside over their own hearings.

While agree their internal processes are complicated and there are multiple explanations for why the numbers look so startling. We clearly need rules for better reporting. The Bill would require the CPUC to adopt rules for Commissioner attendance at their own hearings, which provides them the flexibility to create reasonable rules that they can meet themselves.

I appreciate the Committee's work on this analysis and look forward to answering any questions, if there are any.

Thank you so much for your presentation, Chair Berner. We'll move on to witnesses and support if you want to come forward. You may approach the MIC with name affiliation and position only. Please. Seeing none while moving on. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please approach and identify your name affiliation. Seeing none. We have a move. Second. All right.

Say who the motion's by. Motion by Banta.

Motion by Bonta. Motion by Coloza. Second by Bonta. All right. Okay. Calm down.

It is very difficult. It took me a good first year.

I know what I'm doing. Excuse me.

It took me a while to get comfortable. It's just a lot of pressure.

Please, Madam Chair, I have the mic. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. There has been a motion on AB 1532 by the CNC. Committee is do pass and be referred to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. Will the Secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, Members, that Bill still needs a few more votes, so the bill's on call. Thank you.

All right, now we're moving on to item number three, AB353. Also from Chair Boerner, the Affordable Home Internet Act of 2025. Madam Chair, you may open.

Okay, so I think I have witnesses. I'd like to invite them up here. Thank you. Assemblymember Ahrens and Members, today I'm here to present AB353, the Affordable Home Internet Act of 2025. The Bill would mandate California Internet service providers to provide affordable home Internet to qualified low-income households participating in select public assistance programs.

I firmly believe that all families in the state deserve access to a reliable and affordable home Internet connection. And that's why I am pursuing this Bill. These low income households that cannot afford home broadband are spread all across the state in every single one of our districts. And they need our help. During the pandemic.

California made significant process progress on closing the digital divide because of the widespread support there was for affordable broadband through programs like the Affordable connectivity program, the ACP. 6 million Californians households qualify for the ACP and 3 million California households were able to get access to affordable broadband through it.

But since then, the program has expired and we're seeing a massive drop in subscriptions. Broadband adoption among families with school age children decreased from 97% in 2021 to 93% in 2023, likely due to the expiration of programs like the ACP. The cable industry alone is losing hundreds of thousands of broadband subscribers per month to lower cost alternatives.

Yes, the competition is driving down prices naturally, but the lowest cost plans are still out of reach for many Californians without government intervention. That's why the population I'm trying to reach is because they have no other option.

We don't need to see kids at Taco Bell uploading their homework to Google Classroom at 10pm Again, we all saw it during the pandemic. If you are a mom of two teenagers who are trying to upload things to Google Classroom at 10pm, you know the stress that I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, a subsidy replacement is not realistically on the horizon from the Federal Government, but Californians continue to need this access to broadband. Now, I understand there are legitimate concerns to consider when the government intervenes in the market, but in instances like this, it is necessary. It's also our only option at this point.

The market for low income Californians to access broadband has failed and that's why we're doing this. I remain committed to finding the right solution that fits California. I will continue to engage the industry and consumers and where possible, find that compromise.

I'm also not naive to the fact that many would prefer that we do nothing because often those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum don't have a voice. But they have a voice in us and they have a voice in what we do today. We cannot and should not do nothing.

6.0 million Californian households are depending on us to do something. And some of them are in this room today and have shared their stories with your staff. I want to thank our partners in this effort, the California alliance for Digital Equity, and the supporters they brought with them from across the state. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Chair Boerner, for that presentation. You have two primary witnesses in support. Looks like you have two minutes each. You may begin.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Boerner, Vice Chair Hoover, and Members of the Committee. I'm Shana England. Director of the Digital Equity Los Angeles Coalition, or Della, and the Digital Equity Initiative at the California Community Foundation.

Here today, as proud partners and CO conveners of CADE, the California alliance for Digital Equity, we support AB353's approach to ensuring fast, reliable and affordable broadband is equitably accessible to all of California households, including those that are struggling the most to make ends meet. Charting a path forward for California in this space is urgent.

The FCC's commitment to ensuring all Americans have access to Broadwind was unwound within days of the start of the new Trump Administration.

As the Chair mentioned, the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provided vital support for low income households, ended and there is no path for renewal on the horizon and as a result, millions of California households have seen their monthly broadband expense jump by $30 or more per month over the last year and millions have dropped their subscriptions as a result.

Today, income level is the best predictor of whether a household has access to the fast and reliable Internet service we all need. Survey after survey confirms that households that are not online are disconnected because they can't afford service.

In 2024, the average cost to a California household for an Internet subscription was $95 a month and it has only gone up every single year. Meanwhile, those same companies that provide service for are now the only option for 98% of Californians have reported record profits of those Internet services. Year over year.

Californians are buckling under the weight of an affordability crisis and the cost of essential services like broadband contributes to that crisis. Establishing a floor for fast, reliable and affordable Internet is a common-sense, straightforward, and urgent solution. Thank you Chair Berner for your leadership.

As you know, our coalitions and the many people we brought with us today, and many more who couldn't be with us either because they couldn't take the time off of work or because they were terrified to fly because of their legal status. On behalf of all those, you know that we support this approach.

You also know that we look forward to continuing to work with you to fix and make this policy as strong as possible solution for Californians and we strongly urge and request everyone's vote for this Bill at this time.

Good afternoon Committee Members. My name is Adrian Sandoval. I am the Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at GPSN. We're an intermediary nonprofit organization exclusively focused on improving Los Angeles public education.

Our mission is to bring together the Los Angeles community to catalyze the transformation of the public education system so that students of color and those living in poverty gain the knowledge, skills and experiences necessary to lead adult thriving lives.

In 2020, GPSN witnessed Firsthand disproportionate impacts students of color and those living in poverty were experiencing when schools went online and these students couldn't access their public education because of the Internet access that was either non existent, subpar or priced out of their ability to pay.

In response, we mobilized our network of over 80 nonprofit partners across Los Angeles County to advocate for digital equity and we have become partners in the Digital Equity Los Angeles Coal. We also launched an annual family survey in 2021 to understand and uplift the experiences and perspectives of families in Los Angeles.

Our families have consistently expressed the obstacles to accessing affordable, quality Internet in that survey. We just released the latest results of our 2025 survey and the findings are once again clear. LAUSD families are struggling to afford the Internet services their students need.

Families continue to prioritize academic support programs above all, and they consider Internet access to be a part of those programs. 47% of the respondents in the survey identified free home Internet as one of their top three priorities.

More families reported barriers to quality Internet access than in our 2024 poll and only 15% of families reported that they experienced no barriers in getting online, with cost remaining the largest barrier, especially among low income families.

For those reasons, GPSN is proud to be here today to speak in support of AB353 and to be a resource as the Bill continues to evolve and ensure it meets the needs of our students and families.

Thank you so much. We'll now move on to additional witnesses and support. Please come forward to the MIC and only give your name, affiliation and position. Please.

Thank you Mr. Chair Members Gene Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Hello Liliana with UNITE LA in strong support. Also Digital Equity LA.

Hi Adria Tinnin here with Turin the Utility Reform Network. We're in a support if AMEND position. Look forward to speaking with the with the author. Thank you.

Kevin Miller, Fresno Coalition for Digital Inclusion. And the Connect the Valley Coalition in support.

Arturo Juarez with NextGen California and the California alliance for Digital Equity in support of the concept of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus representing Leading Age California in support.

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

Victoria Sayang Bright Building Resilience and Inclusion through Engagement. Ventura based nonprofit in support.

Hello Ola Gonzalez with Innovate Public Schools and Digital Equity LA Coalition in strong support.

Thank you so much to the witnesses in support. We'll now move on to the two witnesses in opposition, I believe we have on file. You may begin when ready. You have two minutes each.

Can you hear me? Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jeremy Crandall. I'm here to testify on behalf of CTIA. We are the Wireless Industry Trade Association in opposition to this Bill.

I want to get right to the core of what this Bill is about and what this issue is about and what the Madam Chairman Chairwoman has already spoken to, and that's affordability. And if I can impress upon this Committee and the sponsor one message here today, it is this.

At a time when California residents and businesses are paying more for almost. When the price of what California residents and business pay for almost everything is going up, wireless is one of the few items that is going down. I want to share a couple of data points.

Over the last 10 years, electricity rates in this state have gone up 70%. Electricity rates have gone up 92%. Conversely, the cost of wireless has gone down 44%. That is the data. That is the reality on the ground right now, right here in California. It is an affordability success story and it's driven by three things.

Number one, fierce competition. Our Members competing with each other to drive down prices, including through the introduction of fixed wireless for home Internet. It's driven by constant innovation. And finally, it's driven by extensive investments in our networks. This success story is why we strongly oppose this Bill, which is an artificial price mandate policy.

Now, I use that term purposefully because what we are talking about here is an artificial price mandate that would be imposed on private companies operating here in California. And I will add, there is considerable evidence that these types of policy approaches, price controls, hurt the consumers they're ultimately intended to help.

Without question, we can all agree access to connectivity is critically important. And I will add that fixed wireless access is offering consumers a choice, more choice when it comes to home broadband for their internship. Please. And so let me close with. Artificial price mandates should not threaten that choice.

We do not believe there's the solution when there's overwhelming evidence that the current environment specific to wireless. Thank you very much. Is working for consumers. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan with the Rural Counties Association. With the passage of SB 156 back in 2021, that was a $6 billion investment in closing the digital divides, including a state middle mile and a $2 billion last mile funding program. Our 40 Member counties created a joint powers authority called Golden State Connect Authority.

And the aim of Golden State Connect Authority was to finally, bring fiber to the home, open access Internet connectivity to our 40 Member counties. If you're not aware, our member counties have a great land mass but very low population density, making it very difficult to build there and also very expensive to build there.

And that's why those investments haven't been made by large ISPs in the past and why our areas have lack of infrastructure to build in these areas, because again, they are very expensive. Golden State Connect Authority is using a financial stack.

What that means is the federal funding account awards that we're getting, we have seven awards currently for 185 million. That's not enough. And to bridge that Delta, we have to issue bonds and use private capital to build the rest of the network. With bond issuance comes debt service. And so part of that is recouping the debt service.

And that comes from revenues from the customer. So our lowest price that we'll have and a commitment that we made for with the PUC and getting the federal funding awards is a $70 a month for 100 symmetrical. The Committee analysis reflects an exemption for the small ISPs that have less than 50,000 subscribers.

And in part what the analysis says is that these providers have a smaller profit margin and, quote, rely on a smaller base of subscribers to turn a profit in their network in order to afford the ongoing operation and maintenance costs.

Wrap up your thought, please.

Oh, my goodness. That's a quick two minutes. Okay, $15 will not work for us. That will mean that we actually will not be able to build, and these people will continue to not have broadband.

Thank you. All right, moving on to additional witnesses in opposition, please approach the mic. You may identify your name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Members Yolanda Benson representing US Telecom, the Broadband Association in opposition, and also for the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Good afternoon. Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband in opposition.

Hello. Alana Laddis here with the Wireless Infrastructure Association in opposition.

Thank you so much. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming today. I'd like to now bring it back to Committee and ask if there are any Members who'd like to speak on this Bill. Assemblymember Rogers, thank you so much.

Actually, this Bill is kind of an interesting one for me, specifically being juxtaposed with our previous discussion on carrier of last resort. As I kind of talked about at the time, the intent of Kohler, I think, for my community needs to be perfect before I'm comfortable moving forward.

And then the flip side of that for this Bill is the intent of this Bill, I think even if it needs work, deserves the conversation to continue because we know that there are additional folks who are left behind as it pertains to communities. I am concerned. I was going to ask you a whole bunch of questions.

I'm just going to skip that and go to comments. I am concerned that if private companies are forced into this tier that there's less investment and maybe you can respond to this in communities like mine that have fewer people, where the cost per delivery of service will go up.

But I think the overall intent is good, trying to make sure that folks have what is a human right at this point. You cannot be a part of this century without having access to broadband and to Internet. And so I'll move the Bill and good luck. I know you're going to continue to work on it.

I know you're going to meet with folks like Sonic in my district who've reached out and with that, thank you.

Assemblymember, there's a motion. Is there a second? Second by.

I'll second.

Second by. Assemblymember Bonta, you have a question?

I want to thank the officer for. Thank you. I want to thank the officer for bringing forward this Bill and for the proponents for being able to have a linesight to being able to resolve the issue that we've been talking about for a very long time. I've always thought it was a challenge that we've allowed the.

The Ayes, the private providers, to essentially set affordability rates. And I know that this would completely alleviate that challenge. And I also know that it's going to be an incredibly difficult fight to make that happen. And I am with you all the way in that fight. I do want to just make comment on both the Committee analysis and the point raised by the opposition as it related to small ISP providers.

The last line in the Committee's analysis, so well written, is that the Committee may wish to consider an exemption threshold specifically for smaller isp providers or ISPs that operate in areas for which they are only a portion, the only option for service. So is that going to be the threat?

Is the threshold going to be set at 50k subscribers or less or how are you. That's where we are right now. Okay. I mean, I look at this as a work in progress. This is something we've dealt with for years in this Committee. And I'm somebody. I wrestled with this last night.

Maybe this is too much information and it's something I'm always telling me not to share, but I wrestled with this last night. I'm not Somebody who voted for rent control. I'm not somebody who likes price setting or rate regulation.

The problem that I see is without a subsidy that would, if we did it in California, would unduly affect those just above the margin of the poor or something from the Federal Government because we're a donor state and we give all this money to the Federal Government and now we're not getting it back.

Without that, there's no other option. Because that moment with working two jobs with her kids having to upload their homework at the same time. Can't do it and she can't. She shouldn't be choosing between broadband and her kids uploading their homework and putting apples on the table because that's the choice people are making.

I have a friend who does a speech therapist and one of her patients shared this story with me and she said I could share today, one of her patients has a kid who needs speech therapy and she does not have broadband, so cannot do telehealth. So that kid has a six month delay.

This is in San Diego County where we have good health care. I don't even know what's going on in rural areas. Right. She is waiting six months to get in for speech therapy. That's six months that kid's delayed.

Which is if you've ever done with small kids and speech delay, you know, that's a hugely astronomical impact on that family because they don't have broadband. The problem is they can't pay more than 15. So I don't know if I can solve the RCRC problem. I'm willing to work with you to solve your RCRC problem.

I'm willing to look at the 50,000 and how do we deal with who's small, who's unduly impacted? What if they're the only provider?

I'm willing to work with all this, but we have to start at a place not at starting from the place of what do hardworking, low income Californians deserve to be part of our economy, get access to health care and be part of the educational system.

And I feel really, really passionate about that because otherwise I would have found if there was another way, Please, somebody in the world tell me what the other way is. But I don't see the other way. This is the path so we can talk. I'm happy my door's open.

I know we have to work on the fixed wireless. Happy to pull you guys in for a meeting. No, we need to work with RCRC and continue working on this. But we have to start somewhere and we have to acknowledge as legislators that it's our job. And this shouldn't be a bipartisan issue.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue. It shouldn't be a rural urban issue because we all have the mom whose kid's waiting to go to the hospital because she doesn't have broadband to do telehealth appointments. We all have. I'm sorry, maybe there's a dad, a dad working two jobs, two kids. Thank you for that acknowledgement.

Thank you.

You know, but that's where we have to come from. We have to come from this need to serve and that's what this at the core is. And you all know me, I'm hardworking. I will continue working with you. Thank you. As we go through this process and I'm committed to that.

So do I think 50,000 is the right number? Probably not. But we had to start somewhere today.

You'll get there. And just a final so also in the analysis I see the proxies for eligibility being tied to some of these other programs, post secondary education grants or Covered California. I and the agree with the analysis that perhaps those are too broad or blunt of instruments right now. And I know that you will work to identify the appropriate proxies to make.

Sure that we limited it in the Committee as I took in my own Committee. I don't know. I don't know how we did that but we took amendments to our own Bill which limited it. To correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going to look at my consultant enrollment in Medi Cal tennis free and reduced lunch.

CalFresh still covers too many Californians. When you look at the numbers of who's enrolled in that we talk about income inequality in California and these numbers in this Bill and I know Assemblymember Banta, you've been a champion on this issue. But the numbers are staggering. But that's the need is staggering. That's what we have to remember.

The need is staggering.

So I would also encourage you to look at Medicare. But you will get there for sure. I just want to also just share that I know that this is a part of a broader legislative package around affordability in the State of California that the speaker of the Assembly is championing.

I'm thankful to the speaker for being able to do that and for including and I just want to just kind of keep it real for a second. I don't know a lot of people who are feeling like their wireless providers are costing them less money right now.

I just there's nobody that feels like they are paying less for their basic service right now. I think it might have something to do with the fact that sometimes you get a plan and then you get to buy a device that costs you thousands of dollars right now to be able to have that.

I would just caution the opposition in kind of framing out that piece of your argumentation around this piece of legislation because I just don't feel like we are to do so would be tone deaf to what I think the kind of common experience of many individuals in the State of California is.

And counter to their reality, things are not affordable. And I think we need to look that very boldly in the face and develop out legislation that encourage us to be clear, clear eyed about that. And I hope that the opposition will come to the table with, with that intention in mind as well.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Bonta, for your questions. We have Assembly Vice Chair Hoover.

Thank you. I think, you know, I appreciate the. Goals of the Bill. Obviously. I think you're right about that. I think, you know, one of my big concerns is does capping this create access issues? And I'm sure that's been discussed already a little bit. I missed some of it. But do you feel like this is needed?

You said kind of like another way. I mean, is it your belief that the status quo, which is, you know, companies providing low income plans, things like that, is just not sufficient?

So we went through, we haven't done fixed wireless yet and to my knowledge we don't have functioning municipal broadbands yet.

So we looked at cable and most of the large cable providers have some version of this and they range in speed from 50 over 3 to 100 over 20 for different populations within the group that we're including in the Bill.

So I think most of our wireline providers recognize that there's a low income need and they're trying to meet it. The issue is around are they meeting it fully? And they're not. And that means there are people being left out.

And I always say this when I talk about this Bill, probably most of us in the room, aside from maybe some of the advocates who spoke in the me toos today, most of us don't think about our broadband or our access or our wireless. Okay. Tracy Ryan does. Most of us don't unless it goes out.

And when it goes out and when you don't have it, you are painfully aware of the society that you're no longer a part of, the health care that you don't have, the access to jobs that you don't have. When my WiFi goes out at home. My kids, it's a long-standing story.

I'm sure somebody's going to talk to me after this. We have two bars of lte. My kids can't upload their homework. They're making videos. They're uploading things. I don't really know what they're doing. They're doing something. They get good grades. I'm not clear. But they can't do their homework. That's like a blip.