Calif. Anti-Discrimination Bill Gets Rough Treatment at Hearing

Some Democrats warned they might join Republicans opposing a California digital equity bill when it reaches the Assembly floor. At a livestreamed hearing Wednesday, the Assembly Communications Committee voted 7-3, with one member not voting, to advance AB-2239 to the Judiciary Committee. The bill would codify in state law the FCC’s definition of digital discrimination (see 2402080068).

The Communications panel separately voted 11-0 in favor of a bill that would require the California Public Utilities Commission to report on inspections conducted to ensure companies comply with resiliency plans. AB-2765 will go next to the Appropriations Committee. In addition, the committee unanimously supported a consent agenda including three other telecom bills: AB-2369 requiring a study on fixed wireless; AB-2708 to seek more data about cost, funding and timing related to the state’s middle-mile network; and AB-2905 to expand the state’s autodialer definition to include calls made with an AI voice. AB-2369 and AB-2708 go next to Appropriations, while AB-2905 will appear in the Privacy Committee.

All three committee Republicans voted no on the digital redlining measure. In addition, Democratic Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen declined to vote until she saw the final bill on the floor. “My fear is that this would take away from some of the things that in my district … we really utilize, and we look forward to,” said Nguyen, who asked if the new policy might impede existing programs for low-income communities. Also, she asked if it would “open it up for anybody” to claim discrimination “when really there clearly isn’t.” Nguyen asked if, for example, an ISP coming into a new neighborhood could get in trouble for offering a special rate it doesn’t provide to an adjacent neighborhood.

Two Democrats voting yes said they might vote no on the floor later. Brian Maienschein and Freddie Rodriguez asked bill sponsor Mia Bonta (D) to seek compromise with the bill’s telecom industry opponents, which include cable companies represented by the California Broadband & Video Association (CalBroadband), small rural telcos from the California Communications Association (CalCom) and cellular facility builders in the Wireless Infrastructure Association. Republican Assemblymember Laurie Davies similarly asked if any compromise could be found. Davies might support the bill later if so, she said.

The digital discrimination bill could have a “chilling effect” on network investment, warned Amanda Gualderama, CalBroadband director-legislative and regulatory advocacy. State laws, including the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act already prohibit discrimination, said the cable official: No enforcement actions were taken against CalBroadband members in 18 years. If federal digital discrimination rules aren’t overturned in court, the FCC will start enforcing them in September and states might be preempted from taking additional action, she said. CalBroadband especially opposes the California bill imposing a “disparate impact” standard that would hold ISPs liable even if discrimination wasn’t intentional, Gualderama said. CalCom lobbyist Pam Loomis said the bill could expose small rural companies to costly litigation and increase business costs, which could lead to higher prices for customers.

California still has a “serious access problem” despite state policies and programs, said Bonta. Lack of an adequate complaint mechanism might be why there have been no enforcement actions, she added. The bill would acknowledge circumstances where it’s not technically or economically feasible to bring equal service, she noted. While seeking more work on how the bill would be enforced, Committee Chair Tasha Boerner (D) pledged support. "Higher costs with lower speeds [are] unacceptable."

Many digital equity advocates lined up in support of AB-2239, including the California Community Foundation, Media Alliance and the California Emerging Technology Fund. "Areas of historic underinvestment continue to show up as the most poorly served broadband consumers,” testified Oakland Undivided Director Patrick Messac.

Meanwhile, the committee scaled back the resiliency bill so that it would require only reports to the legislature. An earlier version would have required the CPUC to make rules requiring random annual facility checks. CalBroadband and CalComm opposed the original bill but now think it’s heading in the right direction, their representatives said at the hearing.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D) urged passage of her bill. “By enabling these reporting requirements, we can hold accountable those providers who are not doing their part to ensure all California citizens can use phones in case of an emergency.”