The California Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee on Tuesday voted 8-3 initially to send Senate Bill 1058, the “Digital Divide Relief Plan,” on to the Senate Appropriations Committee. But that didn’t happen before the legislation proposed by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, faced a few questions and opposition from utility companies, Internet service providers (ISPs) and industry representatives. Among the takeaways:
• The bill would “require” or empower the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to “direct” every ISP to file an “annual emergency operations plan containing certain information with the commission.” Plans should include procedures the ISP will take to ensure reliable access to communications during a state or local emergency; how it will secure “backup electricity” to ensure communications; identification of “any mobile communications resources” the ISP has to broadcast wireless broadband; procedures for offering points of contact to state and local emergency operations offices to deliver information on “the status of critical communications infrastructure”; and “identification of an affordable class of broadband internet service,” as defined by the CPUC, that the ISP will offer “as emergency relief” in its footprint to those displaced by a disaster or required to stay at home.
It would also make sure residents without broadband access can keep their home phones “at affordable rates,” through the Lifeline program. Hueso was unable to attend the hearing but state Sen. Jerry Hill, R-San Mateo, presented it on his behalf.
“Even before COVID-19, Californians struggled with a lack of broadband access,” Hill said. "While we hope that the worst of utility power shutoffs and the pandemic are behind us, we are likely to face more challenges in the future. SB 1058 ensures that we have plans in place to ensure that all Californians can stay healthy, safe and connected while we plan for the future.”
• Groups opposing the bill were Frontier Communications, Verizon, the California Chamber of Commerce, TechNet, the California Communications Association, the Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) and Consolidated Communications. The bill “overlooks the extraordinary commitments made by the wireless industry in keeping Californians connected during this pandemic,” said Steve Carlson, speaking on behalf of CompTIA, a trade association representing the U.S. wireless industry. The group opposes “the requirement that wireless carriers provide service at a rate deemed affordable by the (CPUC)” and “a mandate to identify capital expenditure plans,” he added, calling those “trade secrets.”
Speaking on behalf of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, which also opposes the bill, its President Carolyn McIntyre said it was “based on a faulty premise that broadband service needs CPUC regulation in order to perform well.
“This bill would unlawfully impose state rate regulation of Internet service,” McIntyre told the Legislature, noting the CPUC “currently has jurisdiction over the state universal Lifeline program” and calling it “woefully undersubscribed.”
• Representatives of the League of California Cities and the Green Money Institute indicated their support for SB 1058, with speaker Christine Mailloux, managing attorney at The Utility Reform Network, telling lawmakers the bill is “a necessary puzzle piece to the larger public policies expressed by the Legislature” and the CPUC to ensure low-income residents retain broadband access during emergencies.
“This bill does not create additional requirements but instead holds carriers accountable and creates transparency to ensure cooperation and compliance” with current CPUC efforts, Mailloux said, adding it “holds carriers accountable for their very own promises to build robust infrastructure and provide reliable and affordable services.”
“SB 1058 will usher in a new and critical component of state disaster preparedness that serves our most at-risk populations such as children and their families throughout California,” said Dr. Gina Potter, superintendent of San Ysidro School District, where more than 70 percent of its nearly 5,000 students are “socio-economically disadvantaged.”
• Only two lawmakers had questions. Sen. Susan Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, asked for clarification on the issue of trade secrets. Hill, a co-author of SB 1058, said it’s his understanding “there is no violation at all.” Mailloux acknowledged that “investment data can be quite sensitive” and would need to be protected — but said the CPUC needs it “to understand the future of broadband in California.”
Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, told fellow lawmakers that ISPs “deserve some credit for providing low-income programs without caps on their participants. But this is not sufficient on its own.” A lack of clarity on whether households without broadband are aware of affordable programs concerns him, as does debate on “how far is too far when it comes to rates of certain service programs.”
“But I think there is room here to find a compromise,” said Bradford, who, like Rubio, voted to move the bill along.
• Eight senators voted initially to send the bill to Appropriations; the vote had risen to 10-3 by Wednesday afternoon. Its next hearing date has not yet been set. An urgency statute, it would take effect immediately if approved.
