Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

The Communications Conveyance Committee was now called to order. My name is Tasha Boerner, and I serve as the Chair of the Committee. Joining me on the dais today are Assemblymember Rogers, Assemblymember Hoover, Vice Chair Hoover, Assemblymember Rubio, and Assemblymember Ahrens.

And we are also joined by Emilio Perez, the Chief Consultant of the Communications Committee, and Elizabeth Delgado of the Committee Secretary, as well as Daniel Ballin of the Republican Policy Consultant. Last time it wasn't you. And I had this in my notes, and I was like, that looks like a different human.

On today's agenda, we have one item. Before we get started, 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 that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoints they express. W1e seek to protect the right of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have an effective deliberation and. And decisions on the critical issues facing California.

You could exit the hearing room once you're done testifying or return to your seat. Now, let's cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years.

As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeants directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the door in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public.

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

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place as permitted by the Chair: me. 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 you to removal or other enforcement actions. Okay, I think we have a quorum. So, the Committee secretary will now take attendance.

[Roll Call]. We have a quorum.

Quorum. Quorum. Today we're hearing AB 470 by Assemblymember McKinnor, relating to telephone corporations, carriers of last resort. Before the author presents, I'd like to remind the public that our committee analyses are always available directly on our committee website under the hearings tab.

And I think we got all 2025 and have a QR code somewhere, which is exciting outside. So, if you're weighted with bated breath for the committee analysis, you could just go outside, press the QR code to get it all there. Yeah.

I just want to say on behalf of the Tech Caucus, we appreciate that.

Thank you. As a member of the Tech Caucus, I'm very happy we have one, though I don't know how they're created. Squiggly lines. Squiggly lines. That's what I'm going to go with. Okay. No AI in the committee analysis, as all are great committee consultants. Before the author presents, I want to remind the public that our committee analysis -

Okay, I already did that website under the hearing tabs. The dommittee secretary is aware that some people had trouble accessing the analysis through the ledge info and LIS website, so please visit our committee website directly as an alternative. The website is acom.assembly.ca.gov/hearings.

There's also a QR code near the agenda posting outside the hearing room that I previously mentioned, so the public can also scan to read the analysis directly. Assemblymember McKinnor, you may open. Yes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I would like to begin by thanking Speaker Rivas and his staff: your committee staff, and various stakeholders that led to the current version of AB 470. As noted in the committee analysis, substantial amendments were made to AB 470 last week, but the policy goals remain the same.

Incentivizing private investments to replace obsolete telecommunications technology with advanced telecommunications networks that will meet the current and future needs of residents, businesses across the State of California. To be clear, AB 470 is the legislation about voice telephone service, not broadband Internet service.

Should this bill be approved today and by the State Assembly later this week, I look forward to further clarification that this legislation does not seek and does not authorize a Kohler obligation on broadband Internet services or broadband Internet service providers.

I also look forward to continued conversations with labor, local governments, and the business community to build on this important legislation. Members, just as telecommunication needs are evolving, it's time for our telecommunications laws to evolve.

AB 470 creates a framework to transition all regions of the state to ensure that all California households will continue to be able to make affordable, reliable telephone calls and connect with emergency services when they need it. I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 470. Thank you.

Thank you. And I have two witnesses. Two witnesses registered. I have Mark. I'm sorry, Garducci.

Great.

Ah. From Emerging Global Solutions. And I have Terry Nicolbaca from AT&T. Is she here? On our way? I know, it's so exciting today. Also fast paced. Go ahead.

You have two.

You have two minutes.

All right. Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm Mark Garducci, the Former Director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services or Cal OES, serving from 2012 to 2023 under both Governor Brown and Newson.

Thank you for revisiting AB 47, which as amended continues to prioritize innovation, modernization, and investment in building resiliency and expanding access to the best technologies with public safety in mind.

I continue to support modernizing the public safety need to transition from an outdated landline system to fiber-based networks in an appropriate and orderly phase in approach because no one should be left without access to communications or 911 services, especially during an emergency.

The recent amendments guarantees that the modernization process will be overseen by CPUC in consultation with Cal OES who is responsible for public safety communications and to ensure that public safety and first responders' input is reflected in any process that is adopted.

Additionally, the commitment to deploy modern networks required by the caller of last resort seeking to amend their status has increased threefold with specific emphasis put on deploying fiber in areas that need it most.

This puts a quantifiable investment in California short- and long-term future, expanding access to the latest and greatest lifesaving technologies to communities throughout the state.

Lastly, thank you to Assemblymember McKinnor, the committee chair and staff, legislative leadership, and especially all public safety leaders who on their continued collaboration to modernize California's public safety communication capabilities in an appropriate manner. Thank you.

Thank you. And slightly out of order because I think we're waiting for Ms. Baca. We'll go ahead and move on to public comment. So, if you will move on to additional witnesses and support, you may approach the MIC with name affiliation position only.

Madam Chair, Ben Galumbik with the California Chamber of Commerce in strong support.

Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in support. Thank you.

Tanisi Herring from the California Hawaii NAACP and strong support.

Yolanda Benson representing US Telecom, the Broadband Association in strong support.

Good afternoon. Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Business Council and support.

Dr. Tecoy Porter Nan-Sacramento President in strong support.

Thank you. Now we'll go back. Ms. Baca you have two minutes.

Good afternoon. I'm Terry Nicole Baca, Vice President of Legislative Affairs for AT&T California, the state's largest carrier of last resort. I want to thank Assemblymember McKinnor and her staff for their leadership and authorship. Speaker Rivas and his staff, Chair Boerner and the committee staff and RCRC for their dedication to this important legislation.

AB 470 represents a thoughtful and comprehensive path toward modernizing California's outdated voice communications policy. Our current regulatory system, rooted in a monopoly era model, mandates that carriers of last resort maintain legacy networks even when customers no longer use them. This policy no longer reflects the reality of today's competitive landscape.

California is the only state AT&T serves that still enforces this outdated requirement. All others have moved forward recognizing that modern services like fiber based broadband better meet consumer needs. Over 95% of our California customers have already transitioned to modern networks. AB 470 ensures the remaining customers retain service until a wired, affordable alternative is available.

With strong consumer protections in place, AB 470 recognizes that not all areas of the state are well served. That is why this bill only provides a path to Kohler reform in areas of the state that are well served by other providers or have no population.

With these latest amends, which place this process firmly within the authority of the PUC and triple the fiber investment requirements of the Kohler Company, this bill guarantees a plan that provides a public benefit while maintaining reliable voice services for every Californian. I respectfully urge your support for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for that testimony. I believe we already did other witnesses in support, so we'll now be moving on to the two primary witnesses in opposition. Regina Costa with TURN and a representative from CWA. Please come forward and go ahead and begin when ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I'm Regina Costa on behalf of TURN. For more than 50 years, TURN has been an advocate on behalf of ratepayers, including the AT&T on the AT&T application and the current Kohler proceeding at the commission and I led the team that's addressing those issues.

Interest of time, I will simply list some of the many problems with this bill as amended. We appreciate including a CPUC process in this bill. However, there is no requirement to hold public hearings before the mandated date of December 15, 2026. Second, liffeline is a subsidy program for low-income customers.

The definition of well served only requires one lifeline option, which could result in the loss of the subsidy fee for some customers. And broadband does not currently have a lifeline subsidy. The CPUC is required to adopt maps, but it is also required to include data from the very faulty maps that deal with broadband and wireless coverage.

Most importantly, there is no requirement for on the ground certification that a wireless coverage actually exists. This mandate is in the Oregon Kohler requirements, but not in AB 470. There are major concerns that the services reported in these maps do not provide customers with accurate 911 calling.

The individual challenge process comes after the CPUC adopts rules and maps, which means that customers have to figure out a way to fight the telephone company on their own. And who has the resources to do that.

While there is a CPUC process to develop rules, the bill doesn't require a CPUC hearing to review applications or to terminate the Kohler obligation. Instead, that's accomplished through a non-evidentiary advice letter that is submitted to staff, not the commission, or to an administrative law judge.

The bill needs more stakeholder input, and it needs a lot more time. I don't think your constituents are calling for the end of Kohler, so we don't understand the urgency. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District 9, which is the headquarters for California, Nevada and Hawaii, we are strongly opposed to the bill. Kohler is, among other things, a mandate for universal service. If someone requests home phone service, they get it.

That means not only is there service, but there is an obligation to repair. There's an obligation to keep up the infrastructure. And that also means that customers are connected, but also means workers have jobs. We have seen over the last few years more and more of our workers lose their jobs.

And if there's a continued shrinking of the footprint in California, we're just going to lose more and more jobs. The way this bill is drafted, there's little if any protections or guarantees for the workforce to not only stay at its current level, but to increase.

We do appreciate the language in there about a build out, but let's be clear. Nothing in the bill requires the build out to be done by union workers or workers in California. There's no language about who will do the work.

Whatever the practice has been in the past, we all know if it's not in the bill, then there's no guarantee. We learned our lesson at CWA when DIFCA Bill passed about 10 years ago, actually 20 years ago now, there were promises of jobs that never delivered. So, we're very concerned the way it's structured.

We're very concerned with the CPUC process, which needs to be stronger we're very concerned that if somebody wants to keep their current landline, they only get to keep it for 12 more months and that's it. So going forward, we have provided three pages of analysis and suggested amendments about a month ago on this bill.

And we have always said we're willing to have discussions, but this bill as it's currently in its current form, is not where it needs to be. We think we need to take a few more months to sit down with all stakeholders and negotiate something that is better for everyone. Thank you.

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

Boracio Gonzalez, on behalf of NextGen California, the California Alliance for Digital Equity, the California Community Foundation and Digital Equity LA in opposition.

Good afternoon. Yvonne Melton, Communication Workers of America District 9 and I rise to oppose this bill. And on behalf of the following CWA locals, they also oppose the bill. CWA Local 9432 Diamond Springs, California. 9449 Chico, California 9504. Simi Valley, California. 9505 Baldwin Park, California. 9509, San Diego, California.

9510, Orange, Anaheim area. CWA 9575 Camarillo and Oxnard. 9586 from Long Beach to Lancaster. 88; it's Colton all the way to Palm Desert, Palm Springs. Thank you.

Let's try it at 65 or 64. That works a little better. Hi, my name is Sean Heap. I'm with Communication Workers of America District 9 staff. I'm also a resident out of Lake County. And this bill directly impacts some of me and my coworkers as well as our residents in Lake County.

I'm here to oppose the bill on behalf of some of the other locals that were not able to come on short notice. 9003 out of Burbank, Los Angeles. 919 out of Berkeley, Los Angeles. 9410 out of San Francisco. Tahoe 9413. Mark wasn't able to come either. 9415 Oakland. 9416 Bakersfield. 9417 Stockton. 9419 Redding and 9423 San Jose.

And thank you to all that attended today.

Little Shorter. Hello, Adria Tynan here on behalf of several organizations in opposition who were not able to attend today.

The California Farm Bureau, the Center for Accessible Technology, Digital Equity LA, Oakland Undivided, Communities and Schools Los Angeles, Center for Leadership Equity and Research, Community Coalition of the Antelope Valley, Arts for LA, Destination Crenshaw, Latino Equality Alliance, Fresno Coalition for Digital Inclusion, Healing and Justice Center, Para Los Ninos, Media Alliance, Greater Public Schools Now, or GPSN, Consejo De Federacion Mexicanas, Institute for Local Self Reliance, Bridge the Digital Divide, United Parents and Students, Families and Schools, Innovative Public Schools, Los Angeles Urban League, Pacoima Beautiful, Diversity and Leadership Institute, Alliance for a Better Community, Hack the Hood, Everyone On, Kapor Center, Our Voice: Communities for Quality Education, Parents Institute for Quality Education, Insured the Uninsured Project, Parent Engagement Academy, Trio Plus, Southeast Community Development Corporation, Vision y Comprismiso, Puente Learning Center, Fiber Up My Neighborhood, Unite LA, Michelson 20MM and of course, TURN.

Thank you.

Martin Ruvalcaba, and I represent CWA, and I oppose this. Thank you.

Fidel Andrade from Central Valley Local 9333 CWA, strongly opposed.

Good afternoon. I'm Cleo Cabral, Vice President of CWA Local 9408, which is Fresno County, Tulare County and others. And I oppose.

Good afternoon. Tarina Woodson Lindo, CWA Local 9400. We represent members in Southern California, the greater Los Angeles area, the Bay Area, up to the Oregon border, and we stand in strong opposition of this bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members: Karen Lang, on behalf of the Marin County Board of Supervisors who are opposed unless amended to address affordability and network adequacy, and the Humboldt and Mendocino County Boards of Supervisors were still reviewing it this morning, but as of this morning, their position had not changed in the word post.

Thank you, Madam Chair and member. Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in opposition. We also have opposition from our labor councils in LA, Orange County and San Diego. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sasha Horowitz, Los Angeles Unified School District. Opposed.

Good afternoon. My name is Pedro Maldonado. I represent CWA 9408, and we strongly oppose.

Chase Roscoe, President, CWA Local 9408, strongly opposed.

Good afternoon. Leslie Reese, representing CWA 9408, and I oppose.

Hello, my name is Jorge Aria Tarena, part of CWA 9408, and I oppose.

Brandon Beck, out of CWA Local 9511, Chief Steward, North County, San Diego, and we strongly oppose.

Carrie Biggs Adams. I live in Calaveras County. I'm part of the North Valley Labor Federation, and I'm a President of Navet, cwa, representing people statewide. We've strongly opposed this bill. We see the challenges living in a rural area. Thank you. Doesn't look like these changes will work.

Name, organization, position. Thank you.

Ken Borges with 9404 and I oppose this amendment.

Dolan Benevente with CW9408. I'm also going to represent all the seniors and the disabled that can't make it out here today. I oppose this bill.

David Quintana with the Los Virginias Council of Governments, which consists of the cities of Malibu, Hidden Hills, Agoura Hills, Calabasas and Westlake Village. And we remain very opposed.

Good afternoon. Tracy Ryan with Royal County, representatives of California as well as urban counties of California and the California State Association of Counties. We are removing our position to the bill and print. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Amanda Guyer, I'm with Cal Broadband. We appreciate all the discussions and are reviewing all of the amendments at this time. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elise Borith here on behalf of the California Community foundation and opposition, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses. We'll now bring it back to the Committee with any questions. Assemblymember Aarons, thank you.

I want to thank the author for your due diligence. I think this bill has come a long way since it was first introduced.

I know it's gone through several iterations to try and really bring together the voices and concerns from a lot of different areas and really appreciate the patience from all of the stakeholders and trying to get this right.

I appreciate I was reading over a lot of the amendments that were taken over last night and this morning and it really is very evident how much effort that you've put in and, and how much concern and care that you have for trying to get this right.

And I know that you've, you are listening and continue to listen to the voices of labor and anyone else who's willing to come to the table to address these issues. And so I would like to move the Bill and would love to hear from my other colleagues.

But as is with the previous iteration, I will be supporting this. Would like to move the bill.

We have a second Assembly Member Rogers.

Rogers, thank you so much. And unlike my colleague, I didn't support the previous iteration of the bill. And at the time we talked a lot about my district from Sonoma county up to Oregon, the concerns that folks have.

And I really want to punctuate the point that, that my colleague made about all of the effort that you've made.

The author did a zoom meeting with supervisors from my district to talk about their specific concerns, even knowing that they were unlikely to remove their opposition at the time, but just thought that it was the right thing to do to hear those voices. And I think that the Bill has come a long way.

I do hear the concerns from CWA still, and I hope you'll continue to work with them on that, particularly things that have worked in other states to try to address some of those concerns.

But I've got to be honest, I don't know that I've seen any other bill this year that has had an author that's jumped through so many hoops trying to make it work.

And I particularly appreciate that, even just as recently as a couple of weeks ago, I came to you and I said, well, I think that there's a drafting error. He said, don't worry, we'll fix it. And you did. And so I'm, I'm happy to support to let it out of the Committee today.

I know you'll continue to work on it and to continue to hear those voices. But I just sincerely want to thank you for, for taking the time to get to know my district and the way that it would impact my district and to address those concerns.

Thank you. I do, and I do plan on working with CWA in the future with this bill. I want to continue to work. I hear them, I hear you when you're saying that, that you don't see a guarantee in the bill. So I do hear you and receive that.

And I am willing to go back and work on that because I want to make sure that the workers are working. We have now a 3 to 1 build out, which is a lot of fiber work. And so we want that to be union workers. And so I am definitely willing to work with CWA on that.

Assemblymember Rubio, thank you.

Assemblymember McKinner. I know how hard this has been and how much work you've put into it. And I do hear the CWA workers, but I know that sometimes just opposing a bill because you oppose it doesn't help in, you know, actually presenting things that need to be fixed. So that's why I have full confidence.

I know you were working on it last night and this morning, and I do have the confidence that you will continue to work with CWA to make sure that their concerns are heard. And so I really appreciate all of the work that you've done.

And Assemblymember Rogers, I have seen other folks that have worked on bills really hard. So you know very well how hard it is to try and bring all sides together. So I really do appreciate it. And again, I do encourage, and I know it's going to the Senate now to, you know, there'll be further negotiations and compromises.

So I really appreciate that. Thank you.

And I also want to make sure that we understand that this again, is not a broadband bill. This is a telecommunication bill. I just want to make sure that we I'm going to say that again, this is it's not a broadband bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bonta.

I want to of course, appreciate the author for continuing to work on this bill. As you all will remember, when we first heard this bill, I was not I voted for it on the condition that there would be continued work on this.

I had several areas of concern, some of which have been addressed by the amendments, some that are kind of still outstanding.

So I just wanted to ask, while we are in policy conversation around some of those areas of concern, I'll start if it's okay with the, with the issue of the the source of CWA's primary concerns, which I think there is a pathway to potential relief around that which has to do with the build out and understanding that.

So just capturing the comment that was made by the opposition around whether there is an ability to be able to in statute be very specific about the ways in which there would either be a just transition or for people who are currently employed by AT&T CWA Members and to what extent there is an ability to actually have CWA Members participate in the build out.

So I want to both ask that question of the author, but then also give opposition an opportunity to respond to whether or not there is a path for CWA Members to be to be able to participate in the build out.

Yes. AT&T is the only telecommunications company that has labor. That's labor. Am I correct on that's union.

And so I in there in their contract, I don't think that their contract was like they had to be building Kohler, but I am willing to go in and look at that and amend the bill to make sure that, that they're in the bill, that they're doing the work and they're in the bill.

And so I am willing to sit down with them and get language do language on that. No problem. I've already started looking at language already before I even had a chance for us to meet again last week, weekend or last Friday.

I was looking at language to put in around this because I never thought that they weren't going to do the work. And AT&T never said that they were not going to do the work. And so they already have a four year contract. They just signed their contract with AT&T.

And so I don't think in the contract it says Kohler. I'm not sure because I haven't seen their contract. So I assumed that they would just transaction. So since then I would make sure that I work with them to go forward so that they can be comfortable with the language.

I'll send the language to them if I may.

Madam Chair.

Sorry.

Yes, please, please respond. Yeah, so a few things in response just to clarify our position.

One is of course around the build out, which in our three page document that we submitted a month ago that was something that was included in there on the build out and also making sure that the build out is actually above build out that is already planned because otherwise there's no added value.

We understand the company is already planning to do some build out. So if it's just going to mirror that, then there's really no gain. The second thing that we put in there was about the Kohler requirement going forward.

The bill, as we read it, potentially prohibits any alternative provider coming in from assuming any of the COLA requirements, meaning they would not have a mandate to serve everybody.

That's concerning for us because what we have seen in the broadband, I know it's not a broadband bill, but we've seen what's happened in broadband is that companies pick and choose which communities to serve. And that's concerning for us because fewer connections, fewer people being served is bad. And that also means fewer jobs for folks.

So having something in there to guarantee that that will, that there'll be some mandate for service because that means mandated repair, mandated maintenance of the infrastructure going forward. The other thing, as far as cwa, last one I'll mention and then answer any other questions, is there also needs to be a review of the alternative providers.

The definition of well served says that there needs to be two or three boxes that need to be checked.

But there's no language in there that does any assessment, analysis of whether or not those alternative providers are workers, if they're going to be using employees, if they're going to be using union workers or they're going to be using contractors. We have seen a lot of contractors and increasingly so in the telecommunications space that it continues.

And we are very, very concerned about that. And so that's something that should be looked at as well. It's like who are these alternative providers? And just to clarify, we CWA does have some Members. I can't give you exactly what their roles are, but we do have some Members in Verizon and Frontier right now just for clarification.

But you know, again, we need to see a little bit more than that. And we've provided some of this in our memo from a month ago.

And so to answer some of those questions, number one, an underserved area is someone that has an area that has three providers, two other which they already they have to have them now.

Well served. I'm sorry, well served. They have to have three other providers which they have to have it now, not like in the future. They have to have three other providers, two wireless, one hardline. And if I'm not mistaken, it can't be AT&T IS that can't be independent infrastructure.

Well served.

And so the providers are there and so we wouldn't be. It doesn't say that we prohibit them from having union labor using union workers. The other providers can do whatever they want. This bill does not prohibit any company from unionizing.

But what I can't do other than with At&t and the build out, I cannot go in and unionize through my bill. And so I won't be like making like Spectrum or T Mobile or any other telecommunication company unionized. That's not what this bill does, but it doesn't prohibit it.

So if the workers want to unionize in those, in those industries, they could do that. I mean we don't prohibit them from doing that. And so I wanted to make sure that we said that. And we're not leaving any telephone, any citizens without telephone.

99% of folks, 99.9% of folks will have a telephone because we will make sure that the well served people have the three other carriers which they already have. And they won't pull out if they don't have this. And so they'll still have AT&T.

If it's like in the rural communities where they have one service provider, they won't be pulling out of, out of those areas. So I just wanted to make sure that you want to add anything.

Madam Chair, could I clarify real quickly? Just very quickly?

I think Assemblymember Bonta has more questions.

Did you want to clarify?

Yeah, go ahead and clarify.

Thank you, madam. Just clarification, what I was talking about, what's prohibited is not the use of union workers. Just to clarify, we were saying that imposing a mandated universal service requirement on an alternative provider is prohibited by the Bill or could be argued to be prohibited by the Bill.

And that's concerning for us because that means that the other companies coming in, whether it's the wireless or wireline, if they do not have a mandate to serve everyone, then they can pick and choose which communities to serve. And there may be maybe 1% and maybe 10% that they choose not to serve.

That's bad for consumers and that's bad for the workers. So I just wanted to clarify. We were not saying mandating union but we also want to make sure that alternative providers put up information before. When it's looked at who are their workers and what are they providing. That should be something that is looked at.

I don't think that's happening now. And those providers are in. They're there like Spectrum's there, T Mobile's there, Verizon's there. And that is something that's not happening at this point. But they still can't pull out without. They can't pull out of an area that is not well served. It has to be well served.

So excuse me, if someone's picking and choosing AT and T has to stay there. If they don't have those other three, those other three providers AT&T has to stay in the community and maybe at this.

Wait, sorry Assemblymember Vaughn, I was just gonna say on this point you might wanna talk about my crazy doomsday scenario and then. Cause we thought about this. Yes, this. And then there's the.

Sure, sure. Thank you Madam Chair. As you know well, because it was your directive and your Committee, there is a provision in the bill that provides an additional safety net even after cholera relinquishment in the state and COLA relinquishment at the federal level for 10 years.

And so in the event that a well served household becomes no longer well served for various reasons, doomsday scenarios, maybe some company goes belly up AT and T is on the hook to come back and provide voice services for the next 10 years regardless of whether we have a Kohler obligation.

Assembly Member Bonta, more questions.

Yes. So I think the other area of concern that I raised and seems to still not be quite fully addressed is around the the issue around the mapping and the map requirements, the map making process.

So just to pick up on the comment made by turn opposition the verification process around determining whether or not somebody has service, whether they are unserved or well served is something that we are very familiar with within the context of broadband.

It was a point of great consternation when essentially the ISP providers were allowed to self certify essentially that an area would be served. It seems like this bill essentially mirrors that practice. So I wanted to just around the map making process, what would that look like?

And is there an opportunity to bring in the piece that was mentioned which is ensuring that there is an on the ground certification that validates that map making process so that we don't have that definition of well served or unserved basically being self reported by the carrier of last resort who is seeking to get out of that responsibility.

Sure. Thank you Assemblymember. With the new amendments in the bill, the PUC has taken complete authority over the challenge and mapping process. So they have until December 16th of 2026 upon bill enactment to establish their own well served map for COLA relinquishment.

They may use FCC data, CPUC data, existing B data that's already been approved by the CPUC, essentially the most up to date and available data that exists, which has also been through its own series of challenge processes both at the federal and state level to make their own map.

So the mapping is now completely at the discretion of the Puc. And in addition the challenge process is now governed, selected, controlled and verified by the PUC using a third party. The only role for the Kohler company is to reimburse them for the costs of the challenge process.

Just in addition to that, the amendments add 180 days eligibility for challenges in well served areas so that upon notification of intended Kohler relinquishment, consumer customer would have six months to raise their hand and challenge.

I just understand also that the public advocate, the independent agent that is set to be able to understand the PUC is still in opposition to this bill with that with even with the amendments. And I think it largely relates to this particular aspect of both the map making process and the challenge process.

So just again, because I want to make sure that we're all able to hear this from a policy perspective, does the opposition have any comment around the either the map making process or the challenge process for us to take under consideration?

Yes. Thank you. Some Member. Very briefly on the maps, the language of the bill requires the CPUC to include the data from the bead maps and from the federal wireless maps that is mandatory to be included in the maps. It's unclear what that means.

Does that mean that the maps have to stay within the four corners of those or is it a different map? So we're very concerned that that broadband map and that wireless map would be in there. And I believe if I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong. I apologize. There's some language in there about referencing broadband availability.

There's been lots of concerns with the bead maps as we know. I think this Committee had an informational hearing on the first version. But there's been serious concerns about the federal maps as far as wireless.

As recently as I think a month or two ago, there was federal entity that issued a statement report that stated the wireless maps, that industry is overstating the application or the availability of coverage, and that the federal maps are very problematic because of that, that it may say that there's coverage there for wireless, but there really isn't.

And Happy to. I know. I've talked to TURN about that, because, as you know, I also work for turn. They have. But we can provide that report to the Committee of Committee Members. And that just came out, I think, in April, if I'm not mistaken.

In fact, we have it right here, April 2025. And it was the General Accounting Office.

I want to make sure Assembly Member Bonta is complete before we go on.

I have one more question.

Oh, okay.

Just on the CPUC, so, what we're saying is that we don't trust the CPUC to do the correct maps. Is that, is that what, what you're saying?

Just, it's slightly different than that. Assemblymember, thank you for the question. The language of the Bill mandates—I'll pull it up in a second—mandates that the bead maps and the federal wireless maps, that data, be included in the map that is produced by the CPUC.

So, it is not a free reign for the CPUC to develop a map. Somehow they have to include those two. It's really unclear to us what that means. Does that mean that the Maps Commission comes up with—only has to be like those maps or can it be something different?

So, that's—so, it's not so much we don't trust the CPUC. It's a matter of the maps that are referenced in this Bill that are mandated to be included, that data has to be included in the maps that the CPUC comes up with under this Bill. That's our concern, that mandate.

But I also heard that the discretion is what the CPUC. That's also included in the Bill. It is included in the Bill. That's a discretion of the CPUC.

The, the, the data.

I'm trying to understand that.

Yeah, I think that's where some of the confusion is because the language says the Commission must—I could pull it up in a second—they must include the data from the bead and the federal wireless maps. That is not discretionary. That is mandatory.

The question we have is what is the discretion of the CPUC to develop maps if, in fact, that those two maps are mandated to be—that data is included to be there. So, we're trying to figure out what that means.

So, what you're saying, though, that those maps are not good. So, what other information would you like? What other information or what other maps are available for the CPUC to use? Sorry, I just want to follow.

Yeah, no, thank you for the question. Those are things that we're trying to—now that the language came out on Thursday, that's some of the stuff that we've been starting to look at and figure out what the alternatives are. But requiring that data to be in there, our initial reading.

That's my question, though. Do you know if there is another way to develop those maps?

Well, I think the question that I was asking also asked for you all to talk more about this on the ground certification process, which is an alternative way to at least validate the self-reported information that goes through the bead and the kind of the federal process. So, that is an additional way.

Do you all want to speak to that?

Yeah, it's vitally important because as we've seen, the maps at the FCC are very, very inaccurate, and that is why Oregon has the boots on the ground verification as part of their Kohler requirement.

Particularly in California, when it's uncertain where a lot of the service actually exists and if it's not verified, to deem a place well served, even though you haven't actually verified that it is served, is a mistake.

So, that's what the challenge process is for, because if we don't have, we can't just say no. Our infrastructure is breaking down. And so, we want to make sure that we're updating that. That's the intent of this Bill is to update our infrastructure. And so, we have to start, we—that's what the challenge process is for.

That's what the CPUC is for. That's why we're going—we're putting it before them. And so, that's the up-to-date maps that we have right now.

But there's. I don't—if I'm allowed to start.

Yeah, I appreciate that, Assemblymember. I think my take, like it's something when so many organizations that are deeply focused on digital equity are still standing in opposition to this Bill, it at least calls for us to ask the question around whether or not the replacements that we are moving towards.

I'm not opposed to—I'm not trying to have us just say no, but I am seeking to make sure that we're putting something in place that will ensure a transition that will not impact our most vulnerable Californians and that doesn't have a path for the workers who have been primarily supporting this infrastructure to not be handled.

So, those are, I mean, that's really the source of my questioning and you know that from me. I think the issue that I have with the challenge process is that that challenge process is ex post, right? The damage has already been done.

You have to rely on somebody to have the ability, facility, capacity, to be able to jump in and, and indicate that they have a problem. And those are the people who are the most vulnerable, who don't have the resources that many do to be able to come forward and do that.

So, the questions I'm asking around the development of the process are just, is it complete enough to be able to keep fewer challenges from being made? And that's kind of the nature of my question on that.

Last question for me is related to the overall—the other issue I had was around community benefit and I understand that the amendments now double the amount of reinvestments but also extend the timeline for that reinvestment to happen over six years.

Within that time period, my specific question is, is there an opportunity really to understand or know whether new communities that may come online will have the ability to have lifeline offered to them so, or more specifically, where the reinvestment is actually happening.

I think the opposition raised something or a concern around is it going to be remedying existing infrastructure or is the count for additional builds really going to go towards the work that the carrier would have already been doing anyway to expand their fiber network?

No, this is a three to one. When they pull out of one household, they'll Bill out three. That wasn't, that wasn't pre-existing.

Which households? I think, is the question for me.

Sure. Thank you, Assemblymember. So, what these amendments do is triple the amount of investment required per Kohler relinquishment, per residential Kohler relinquishment line. As far as an analysis on sort of cost and investment, as you alluded to, is it's difficult to do. Certainly, it's well beyond what our capital expenditure investment has been in the past few years.

So, it's above and beyond. Absolutely. To give you an exact number is somewhat difficult because it's dependent upon the PUC and the state actually approving Kohler relinquishment. So, for every line that we receive Kohler relinquishment on, AT&T will build essentially three more, but it's tied to that.

So, it's hard to give a firm number when there's a very extensive process in front of you at the PUC that's going to take at least probably two to three years to even begin. It's hard to do an analysis on exact lines until we can operationalize the process that even would lead the state to approving Kohler relinquishment.

So, I hope that it's an incentive for the state to, to approve Kohler relinquishment. But those lines are really built upon the relinquishment when it's granted, if that makes sense.

I don't have any other questions. I will just say, I very much appreciate the author's continued work on this Bill and for hearing my concerns.

Because there are so many digital equity advocacy groups who still have serious concerns with this Bill and because we have opposition from both the CWA and the California Labor Federation, in its current form, I'm not going to be able to support this Bill today, although I'm pretty sure you have the votes to be able to move this, move this Bill forward.

But, and I know that you will take into account my ongoing concerns. I appreciate that.

Assemblymember Rubio.

Yes. Following up on—we talked about all the advocacy groups that are here, and I also heard the word, "boots on the ground." You have allowed—or part of the Bill is that one person can basically say, you know, we want to review the process. Correct?

If that's the case, we have many advocacy organizations here that can step in and say, hey, I'm the one person, or we're the one organization that's opposing. So, you've allowed for 180 days and one person, one person can, can oppose whatever the, the CPUC is proposing. Is that correct?

Yes. That was actually discussed quite a bit in the negotiations and some of the parties were advocating, and it was built into the Bill where a person in that census block or in that area could challenge the process, or an entity on behalf of that person could challenge the process.

And Kohler relinquishment cannot be granted until all challenges are resolved. So, there's no sort of damage or anything done. No Kohler can be granted relinquishment until all challenges are resolved.

Okay, so then for me, that makes me feel comfortable because one person or one entity can challenge it and you've extended the, I guess a timeline, to 180 days to be able to challenge that.

So, I'm comfortable with that because that gives the opportunity to all our advocacy organizations and CWA to be able to challenge if, in fact, there's something that is not, you know, clear for them. Thank you.

Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you so much, Chair. So, the question on the mapping, I think is a really good one. My predecessor actually had a Bill, AB 286, that it may be worth looking at what that process that was established for the maps are.

My understanding is that the Bill didn't have a timeline for implementation, nor funding for it, through the CPUC. But it might be worth looking at that and seeing whether adding in a timeline could resolve some of those concerns that exist out there. Thank you.

Okay, so I have a question for the opposition, specifically regarding the maps. We spend a lot of time talking about maps.

And while I hear your concerns that they're not completely accurate, do you agree that both the bead maps and the FCC maps are the most robust, granular, and scrutinized maps of any broadband availability that we have in the state, to date?

Do you mind repeating that, Madam Chair?

Do you agree that the bead and FCC maps are the most robust, granular, and scrutinized maps of broadband availability, to date? Are there better maps?

Since it's referencing broadband, I don't know. Left.

So, bead is broadband. So, the bead maps and the idea of this Bill is you start with the most, in my opinion, scrutinize granular maps we have. And that's why they're in the Bill. They're the starting point. I've never seen the CPUC not take discretion and I'm not sure why they would start now.

Sometimes we like when they take discretion, sometimes we don't like when they take discretion. But I would say they would be true to form. And the data on the maps has been reviewed by thousands of people. There were 2 million errors and there were 2 million corrections to the bead maps.

So, they are our most granular, our most scrutinized maps. Are they perfect? No, they're not perfect, but that's why they're the starting point. They're not the end point.

And so, when we look, when the CPUC opens their new rulemaking, there will, once again, be an opportunity for the public to provide input on those maps, before it's adopted by the CPUC, and I just wanted to say, adopting the maps by the CPUC was an amendment that this Committee made to the Bill.

We said start with that, but you're going to have to go through that. And it's hard because, you know, some people wanted to take the existing maps, but we're like, no, we, we don't want to leave anybody behind. Nobody wants to leave anybody behind.

If there's one household that could be left behind, they will not get Kohler relief. And just remember, this is a Bill about Kohler relief, and we have AT&T here. The reason, Frontier. Frontier is the other carrier of last resort in the state of California. So, this process would apply to Frontier too, should they ever seek Kohler relief.

So, we talk about that way, but what we want is that bigger picture. And on the back end, there will also be a challenge process for any individual household to challenge the designation as well served. And we require there be a 10-day—10-year—doomsday scenario to prevent exactly the scenario where one household is left behind.

There could, you know, they didn't know a wireless provider or a wireline provider goes belly up. They no longer serve that area. AT&T will come back in and provide voice for those households.

There is the idea of this Bill, when it left Our Committee was there's backup, upon backup, upon backup, because we want people to have access to voice. And the broadband maps were an indication. They're not perfect because it's not voice. Many more people probably have voice than they have broadband. So, it's a starting point.

And I think it doesn't make sense to reinvent the wheel when we already have a great starting point and the CPUC will hopefully make it better. And nothing in this Bill precludes the CPUC from making updates to the map in the interest of accuracy. So, are there any more questions? No? Okay.

We have a—we have a motion by Ahrens, a second by Rubio. Assemblyman McKinnor, would you like to close?

Yes. I would just like to say to my colleagues and to the public, my record shows that I have always looked out for the least of those. If you go through my, my three years here in the Legislature, my votes show that I am a person that will never leave anyone behind.

And it also shows that I am 100% labor voter. I worked for labor, and I look out for labor. I look out for workers. And so, I mean—and most of my colleagues who've served with me these three years know that. And so, this doesn't—things don't change.

I'm still looking out for the least of those and I'm still looking out for workers. But what I am concerned about is that only 5% of Californians have these copper line phones. 5%. That's a problem. And copper is, it's becoming obsolete.

If we don't do something like the rest of our infrastructure in the state of California, our telecommunication infrastructure will be harmed. People will not be able to use these copper lines. They will not last forever.

If you look at New Jersey, in New Jersey, near the airport, the copper lines caught on fire, which delayed the planes for about two hours. And so, what did they do? They're talking about putting in fiber because fiber optics is what's happened, what's the new technology at the time.

And we wanted to make sure that we worked with a company that would invest in California, would invest in fiber, would upgrade our telecommunications system. And with that, I ask for your "Aye" vote.

Okay. Assemblymember McKinnor, your Bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. When this Bill passed the CNC, the first go around, I believe our Committee amendments put this Bill on the right track. We required process, we included guardrails, and we ensured that there would be a commitment to public benefits as part of the process.

Since then, I know you have continued to work with the opposition, as you promised you would. And while I understand their concerns about Californians getting left behind in this transition, I believe we have strong guardrails in place to ensure that this does not happen. And also, procedures in the—hopefully the case we will never have to use that it does.

Californians will continue to have access to multiple options under this Bill. Some telephone corporations may get relief of their Kohler obligations, and the public will benefit. Moving forward, I know you're also committed to working with our friends in the labor movement.

I know that they remained opposed right now, but I encourage that they're now—and I am encouraged that they'll now be coming to the, that they will now come to the table, hopefully, with suggestions that I believe can only make this Bill more robust in ensuring that just transition.

What I've said before is that this transition away from copper networks to advanced telecommunications infrastructure is not happening because of the Bill. It's happening despite the Bill. However, if we want to ensure the public and workers benefit, I continue to believe legislation is necessary to ensure that we reach that goal.

This Bill can be a win-win for all parties, and I am confident that there's a path forward to that end. With that, I'm recommending an "Aye" vote. And we have a motion. Members, there's been a motion and a second. The motion on AB 470 by Assemblymember McKinnor is do pass. Will the Secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. 7 to 0. Members, this concludes the work of the Assembly Committee on Communication and Conveyance today. We are adjourned.

Good job.

Very well done.

Take some time off.