Good morning, everyone.

My name is Miguel Leon, 
and I'm a program officer

with the Michelson 20MM Foundation.

Thank you all so much

for joining us for this edition

of our Connecting California series.

Before we get started

with today's program,

I would like to share a bit

about the foundation.

Founded by Dr. Gary K. Michelson
and Alya Michelson,

the Michelson 20MM Foundation

is dedicated to ensuring that everyone,

particularly our most vulnerable

populations, has access to the equitable

post-secondary educational opportunities

that lead to meaningful careers.

We proudly operate at the cutting edge

of higher education

to help forward thinking

innovators, nonprofits and startups

close the opportunity gap.

Our Connecting California series

is one example of a project

that launched approximately 10 months ago

as part of our digital equity initiative

to increase awareness

of the digital divide

and opportunities to close it.

The series has showcased

the range of things,

including the brief history

of digital inequity.

Its root causes potential

long term solutions

and even uplifted exemplars of public

private partnerships,

whose cross-cultural efforts

are making a difference

for communities and people in need.

Today, we are proud to bring together

some of the brightest minds

and most forward

thinking leaders

in this work with digital equity

in the California legislature.

The Golden State's historic opportunity

here is Phil Kim,

president of the Michelson

20 MM Foundation.

Will share more about what's

in store for us today. Phil.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome and thank you

for taking the time

on this Friday to join us.

Before we kick off,

I just wanted to take a moment

to recognize the

Michelson team for their work

and especially Miguel Leon

the Connecting California series,

which has provided

such a valuable space for dialogue

in the collision of big ideas over

this last chaotic year has really been

his brainchild and passion project.

So thank you, Miguel.

Today with the California

Community Foundation

and the Silicon Valley

Community Foundation, huge.

Thank you to our partners there as well.

We're excited to bring this critical

but often inaccessible

conversation on broadband policy

from the halls of the Capitol

to this important

audience of stakeholders

representing digital equity

thought leaders, funders

and community organizations.

So many of our conferences

and convenings today now begin

with the line that the

pandemic has underscored

and opened our eyes

to longstanding inequities

as the world reopens

and we begin to now return

to some sense of normalcy.

The legislators here with us

today are perhaps our

best chance of making

sure those important

realizations are

translated into meaningful

and lasting change at this time.

It's my pleasure to introduce

Dr. Gary Michelson, founder

and co-chair of the Michelson

20MM Foundation

and the Michelson Center for Public Policy

to provide some opening thoughts.

Dr. Michelson.

Thank you, Phil..

Good morning.

Thank you for joining us today

for this timely and

critical conversation.

Today, we have the opportunity

to address a longstanding

systemic inequity

and to make the world

a little less unfair.

In his may revise,

Governor Gavin Newsom

proposed dedicating

seven billion dollars

towards addressing

California's digital divide.

We commend the governor

for taking this bold

and visionary step.

Included in his proposal

is the build out of a state wide open

access middle mile network.

The programs to allow for

publicly owned last mile

municipal broadband networks.

These are just two

of the many provisions

that have the potential

to reverberate for decades to come.

The Senate and Assembly have likewise

boldly answered the call,

and we are beyond grateful

to have all three

of California's viable

and currently active

digital equity policies

represented here today

by the visionary legislators

who have respectively

authored and nurtured them

.

Assemblywoman Cecilia Aguiar-Curry

Senator Anna Caballero 

and Senator Lena Gonzalez

are at the tip

of the spear in California's

efforts to combat

the digital divide.

And we will reserve

most of today's session

to hear them speak about their efforts.

Unfortunately, we are engaged

in an asymmetrical warfare

against the well

resourced, well-organized,

well incentivized

industry incumbents.

Major ISPs have mobilized

on multiple fronts

and are employing

increasingly blatant

tactics to maintain

their stranglehold

on service areas.

We'll hear more on this

from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The ISP industry continues

to inaccurately inflate

purported coverage

and service data using inadequate

speeds of 25 slash

three megabytes per second

in order to disqualify localities

from municipal and public

broadband options,

which they themselves

drove to create.

One telecom industry group

has proposed that all broadband

funds be allocated

to California's advance services fund,

which in its current form would stifle

the impact of public dollars

against the telecoms oligopoly.

And of course, the industry continues

to push for simple, myopic subsidies

that reward their

very own bad behavior

at the expense of

most vulnerable citizens.

I thank the assemblywoman

and the senators for sharing their time

and work with us today

and hope that the conversation

can not only surface nuances

around the interplay of these

three bold efforts,

but also spark our audience

of stakeholders to take action.

Please enjoy the discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Michelson.

Now it's my pleasure to introduce

Efrain Escobedo, 
Vice President of Civic Engagement

and Public Policy at the

California Community Foundation.

We'll also share

opening remarks, Efrain.

Thank you, media

guys, and good morning to everyone.

Dr. Michelson and the team

at Michelson 20/20

want to express our deep gratitude

for your leadership in early on

creating the space,

which is catalyze tremendous momentum

towards addressing

what our president, Antonio Hernandez,

this has has deemed for us

the civil rights issue

of our generation

here in California.

And so this morning,

we're proud to partner with you all

and with our peers

and tremendous leaders at Silicon

Valley Community Foundation

to continue the conversation.

But more importantly, to begin

to foment the movement

required to really address

two critical realizations that came about

in this unfortunate pandemic.

and one is that California

lacks the infrastructure

to achieve digital equity.

And as a result,

we saw hundreds of thousands of people

in the most desperately

impacted communities

across California suffer

even more than they should

have to access their

right to education,

to access their right to health care,

to even at the most basic,

protect themselves

from the pandemic by

being able to access

vaccine appointments.

The second is that California

also has lacked an investment in care

in delivering to communities

the assets necessary

to access our digital infrastructure.

And so we stand here today

as a community foundation, knowing that

this must become our number

one priority issue

as community foundations.

We're in a unique position

to also advocate

for our communities and so flexing

our ability to partner and advocate

alongside our legislators.

We're excited to continue that work

and today are excited to, as

Dr. Michelson said,

have time with the tip of the spear

trying to achieve

greater digital equity in California

to really see

what are the essential building blocks

of an equity movement

in the digital space, which is voices

representing those most

desperately impacted.

And to have the charge in the legislature

being led by three women of color,

signals that we are

centering on equity

signals that we must

really strengthen

this movement to take this opportunity

to right this wrong

in California and ensure

that as we recover from a state,

that we not only recover

to a state of normalcy

that takes in those inequities

we now know exist,

but that is more of a rebirth

for California that is more inclusive

of our most impacted communities.

So, again, appreciate

the leadership

and look forward

to the conversation today.

Thank you, Miguel.

Thank you, Efrain.

With final opening remarks,

we have Gina Dalma,

executive vice president

at the Silicon Valley

Community Foundation.

Gina, thank you so much.

Miguel, and thank you, Efrain,

for your incredible leadership.

I am delighted to be here.

I am so delighted that

I get to thank Senator González,

Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry

and Senator Caballero.

Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you for your public service.

How proud I am

the women of color leading this as.

Efrain said it really fills my heart.

Silicon Valley Community Foundation

is proud to partner with Michelson

20 Million Minds Foundation,

the California Community

Foundation, for today's program.

It's been said to be

for the lack of access

to affordable, reliable

and quality Internet

can be crippling

and cause significant hurdles

for the families we care so much about.

A study from the New American Foundation

for the foundation's work

yesterday found that one in seven

children do not have broadband

Internet access at home.

Sixty five percent of low

income families reported

that they lacked access to a computer

or reliable Internet.

And among families

that don't have Internet access, more

than half reported

their connection is too slow.

The majority of those

families are Hispanic.

The majority of those families

are African-American.

They are unable to use the Internet

for job searches.

They are unable to use Internet

for communication

with potential employers.

And their children are falling

far behind in school.

You've heard it before.

During the pandemic,

more than a quarter of California

families were unable to access

medical care using telehealth.

Building back a better

normal really means

that we must find solutions

that are more just that a more

equitable, equitable

for all the members

in our community.

We need to close the digital divide.

We need to close the digital divide.

Quality broadband

access for all means

that children will have resources

they need to excel in school.

It means the more people can use digital

telehealth services to manage

and improve their well-being.

And it means that everyone

can have access to work,

quality employment opportunities

and ultimately upward

economic mobility.

Right now, there's a

window of opportunity

being led by these

three courageous women.

Governor Newsom and our speakers

that you'll hear today

have made bold proposals that can advance

digital equity in our space.

So let's not waste

that window of opportunity.

It is our hope for today's

session that we all leave

inspired to take action,

reimagining broadband access

in California and ending digital divide.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you to our partners.

Back to you, Miguel.

Thank you.

Thank you,

Dr. Michelson, for your vision

and commitment to digital equity

and for bringing us together once again

for this very timely

and important conversation.

Thank you to Efrain and Gina

for your steadfast leadership

and your dedication to justice.

Now it is my pleasure to introduce

our first keynote speaker,

Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry

Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry represents

California's 4th District,

which includes parts of Napa

Lake Yollo, Sonoma

Kaluza and Solano Counties.

Assemblymember Aguiar-

Curry is the author of Assembly Bill 14

The Internet for All Acts

of 2021.

Assemblywoman Aguiar-

Curry has long been

a digital equity champion,

and we're proud to welcome her

to our virtual stage

Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry

Welcome.

Good morning.

Good morning, everyone, and it's an

honor to be here today.

You're right.

I've been working on this

for quite some time.

And unfortunately,

it took a pandemic

for people to realize the need

for Internet as well as telehealth.

So with that, as I said, the

the pandemic really kicked this off.

I've been working in this room

for probably 10 years now,

and I'm not going to lie to you.

Deaf ears.

And until the pandemic hit,

people finally realized

that this is an issue

not only in urban areas,

because we have plenty of urban deserts.

But in a rural communities.

And it shouldn't be based

upon population.

It should be based upon access.

Everyone should have access

to telehealth, health, education,

workforce development, you name it.

And all your speakers

that started this are named

all the things that are important.

And what we want to do is make sure

things are affordable.

We want to make sure the reliable

and with time, we can get that done.

I'm honored to

have this conversation with you today.

You know, one of the things that we have

really dealt with and let's just

talk about the pandemic briefly,

is that patients

needed to continue to see the providers.

And so what did we need

to do to bridge that access?

Again, the word access,

and we reached it by using telehealth.

I ran a bill a year

ago over a year ago,

and it was supposed to be taking effect

in January 2021.

But because of the

pandemic, we got to implement

our bill in June of last year.

So basically, it's been a test

and the test has been

very successful that we have

now, people that can access telehealth.

So this year I did a bill AB 32,

which makes the flexibility

that we had for the bill

for telehealth during the pandemic.

So we want to make sure

we can have access, our health

professionals more permanent.

And so that access doesn't go away

once the pandemic goes away.

So while the pandemic

had led to a lot of disruption,

some patients access to care,

telehealth, specifically

telephonic care.

So those on the telephone

has allowed providers

to bring care to patients

that they may not have

been able to do before.

And the good thing

is, is that the state

has really agreed

with this in so many ways,

is that according to the California

Health Benefits Review Program, or AB 32

will increase health care access

while decreasing

disparities created

by income, race, ethnicity,

lack of mobility,

a shortage of health care providers

or technology based barriers.

So I strongly believe

when implemented, will telehealth

will revolutionize how we provide

safe, equitable and

effective health care.

But what are we missing?

We're missing the Internet.

And so that's when

I introduced numerous bills

on the Internet.

And this one is AB 14.

And I'm working hand in hand

with my colleague

that I was speaking with.

Soon as Senator Leana Gonzales.

And we came about the

approach differently because we hadn't

been real successful last year.

And I know a lot of

it had to do with just

the confusion with

the pandemic and where we

were going with things

and trying to get people access.

But she and I made a pact

that we would work on this together

from the Senate side,

as well as the assembly side,

because obviously we need both sides

to come together.

We would also work

with the administration.

So therefore, we have two great bills

led by both of us

that we intend to make sure that we can

our constituents

throughout the state,

whether it be urban or

rural, will have accessibility.

So it opened the door by doing AB 14

for local governments,

electronic electrical cooperatives

and tribal governments

to provide connectivity

in their own communities

where the private sector cannot

or they choose, quite frankly, not to go

into or to provide

sufficient service.

So our bill my bill has not only that,

it gives opportunity for JPAs,

special districts,

those sorts of groups

to be able to implement

Internet connectivity

in their communities.

So my bill ensures grants

administered by the CPUC, the California

Public Utilities Commission,

that are awarded to applicants

who are willing.

That's a big word here

that are willing and able to quickly

and efficiently connect households.

Community anchor institutions,

small businesses and employers

by making eligible anchor

institutions along

the pathway of a project.

So we don't miss opportunities

to provide linkages to health,

education, public safety,

emergency services.

I mean, you you know, you know the drill.

And we want to make sure

that everybody has access.

To this,

we also have the opportunity to create

so many more jobs in California.

Workers will need to have

new skills and training

to deliver these projects

that we are going to go after.

So as a group, many of you know,

a lot of us are working in this aspect

and to fight the fight.

And together, we've

put the momentum together

to succeed this year.

So now's the time to seize the moment

and bring all of our constituents

into the 21st century

for the work in health and health

and quality of life.

And I want to say is that

the key is, is that

the governor's proposal?

I will tell you that

he as far as I'm concerned,

I don't know if Lena

will feel the same way that he's

taken our language

and put it into his proposal.

So will we get credit

for all the hard work?

Well, we hope so, obviously.

But the point to me is,

is that I want people

to be connected.

And there's no reason

in the state of California

that we cannot figure this out.

The governor has a

couple of cool proposals

that I'm I'm really interested in.

And one is, is that the middle mile

and the middle mile

would be putting fiber

throughout the state of California.

I thought, well, how can we do this?

How can we do it this inexpensive?

But nothing's inexpensive,

but make it reasonable to do that.

The installation of fiber

throughout the state

and one of the his ideas

was to actually use

Caltrans runaways.

Why do I like that?

Because the roadways

are already in existence.

If we start putting this on private land,

we will be there forever

before we can get fiber up

and down the state of California.

So imagine, if you will,

that we have 13 Caltrans divisions

throughout the state of California.

Imagine if you will, free

the governor mandates,

which I think he's

going to do, mandates that

Caltrans make sure that we get fiber

installed throughout the state

of California, 98

percent connectivity

throughout the state

of California in three years.

I think that's the fastest way to do it.

I think it's the prudent way to do it

because we already have

the right of ways

One example that I use

is the cost of installing

fiber is the fact that

look at a high speed rail,

high speed rails.

One of the major costs,

one of the many major costs

of that project was going

over private land.

And purchasing private

land is very expensive

and it delays projects.

So I think the Caltrans idea

that he's working on

and proposing one of his ideas,

I think it's a really good idea

to help all of us

to be able to get access sooner

rather than later.

I'm sure you have plenty

of questions if you do,

but I've been working in this realm

for a long time.

I believe in partnerships.

My I was lucky enough that.

Let me give you a little story.

I was lucky enough,

I was the mayor of a small town

where only 5000 people.

Economic development

was dying on the vine.

I took it upon myself

to start working in the school districts

because I figured

when the economy came back

that people would start

wanting to move back to my community.

And but the first thing they ask is,

how is the schools?

And my schools weren’t strong.

My schools had no technology.

My schools were rundown.

There's electrical wires hanging out.

Kids don't have connectivity

I approach the Yocha Dehe tribe

and they provided us with six

hundred thousand dollars

for the technology for kindergarten

through fifth grade.

We started to get that

implemented at the schools.

The parents came.

The children came.

It was like it sparked education

and the need for education

in my community.

They also decided

that the investment was so good

that they give another five hundred

thousand dollars for the high school.

The community believed in

education even more so.

Lo and behold, we have passed

three school bonds in my community,

and the children at the high school

have a brand new full new high school.

And it's all based on technology.

And I think that we should be doing this

all through the state of California.

So I, I really admire

what you all are doing,

that you are looking for lower cost,

making sure people have access

to support your entrepreneurs.

Here is a prime example

that we should be helping

entrepreneurs to move on

as we started to do the

the last mile of installing Internet.

And we're going to be more creative

and have the flexibility.

I really think that we have

so much opportunity.

So I really want to help all of you.

And I really like to have

recommendations.

One last thing I'd like to share

with all of you is that

my bill has a fee in it.

It's an existing fee.

It's to extend the fee

that's already that you're paying.

And we're looking at maybe about twenty

three cents per month

per use on your cell phone.

So everyone has a cell phone.

And if you use your cell phone,

you have a fee on it right now.

That money goes into a bucket of money.

One hundred and fifty

million dollars a year.

That money can be leveraged

and that money can be cities.

And counties can leverage

some of that money

that's coming in in this fund.

Why is that important?

Because many

because we have not tapped

into our potential in California.

The potential is, is

that there are health

grants out there

with the federal government.

There is agricultural

grants that are out there.

There are education

grants on the federal level.

But a lot of times

they ask you,

you have to match your grants.

And we could be able to go

after those funds and ultimately

make it really affordable

for people to use the Internet.

You know, if I had my way,

I want it free for everyone.

But we have to be realistic

until we get the infrastructure in.

We can't do a whole lot.

And so I think we have so

much opportunity.

I am so excited.

I'm so excited about the doors.

It's going to open up.

This should have been open.

It shouldn't have taken

the pandemic to do this.

So I, I really appreciate that

all that you all are doing,

that you want to make this

a priority to yourself

again.

You're more than

welcome to tap into my office.

Give us suggestions

whether it's this year.

But we really would love your support

on getting our bill through.

We are going to be going to do

the Senate Communications

Committee, I believe, next week.

I know Senator Gonzales

will be going through

the assembly side soon.

You know, be there for me,

too, on the phone.

Tell them how important this is.

Right.

write all of your assembly members

and senators, because there are

I know it's going to be hard to believe

there are assembly members and senators

that are not supporting our bill.

They're not supporting it.

And it's the most important thing

for all of us in the state of California.

So anyway, thank you very much.

Is there any questions or.

Thank you, Assemblywoman, I

truly appreciate your leadership,

if you will indulge us

there did emerge one question.

Has there been any consideration

about starting a digital equity pledge,

ala giving pledge and find one

take corporate champion to lead this?

You know, I am not aware

of that right now, but I think that

if once we get this bill through

and we kind of filter

through where we're going

and how we can do it.

Now, one thing I would really like to see

come out of this

is that if we are going

to use the Caltrans idea

that the governor has

that I would like to see

a czar, let's just call Mazara

that overlooks the Caltrans,

making sure that they

actually get this work done

in a timely manner.

That's my number one thing.

But I think we need to

really encourage a group

or someone to help cities

and counties and special districts

and tribes and JPAs to be able

to form and go after

philanthropic

money, go after grants

and know how to write these grants,

go after health care.

Health care has funding

out there for telehealth.

But again, it's when you don't

have fiber right

now, you're discouraged.

You don't go after it

and you go, well, maybe someday.

No, the someday is now.

And this is really,

really, really important.

It's important to me.

I'm one of the older

legislators there,

but I want this for my grandchildren.

I want it for all of you.

I want you to be able to succeed.

And this is the way we're going to do it.

And I want and we need to hold hands

and be a united front to do it.

We can't do it alone.

Senator Caballero,

myself, Senator Gonzales,

we can't do it alone, but

we need you on the back end.

We'll get this first of this

first step going,

but I need you to do it.

I've told cities and counties

you need to change maybe

some zoning or do some

figure out fines and

all that needs to be taken care of

so they can take advantage of this.

So I think there's

there's work to be done, but

we've given fair

information to the cities and counties.

if this is important

to your community, then

you need to get on board.

Thank you, if it's ok, I'll ask

one more question.

from our audience assembly

member Aguiar-Curry.

In terms of the infrastructure,

how far are we projecting

into the future?

If we move too quickly,

would we be making it

more difficult to upgrade?

No.

So that's a really good question,

because it's been asked numerous times.

So I was told specifically

I was at a broadband

a big meeting last week, and

top experts throughout

the nation were there

and they said never say futureproof.

Well, but they did agree that

fiber is the place

to start the fiber is

and will continue

into the future quite well.

So I can’t use future,

whatever, anyway.

But that's what they highly recommend.

It gives you a lot of flexibility.

It will give communities

flexibility, open access.

So that's that's the way

I think we should go, you know they say,

Well, how about satellites, Elon Musk?

I'll think of something.

You know what?

It's not going to be accessible

and it's going to be costly

for many people.

I want to make it just like electricity,

you know, plumbing,

you know, whatever the case may be,

everybody should have access to this.

So I think the cost will come

down, the cost and why

the ISPs have been stalling

and not so into it is because

obviously operations is expensive.

Putting in fiber

can be expensive.

So let's just take this and run

and get the fiber in

and be able to work on the last mile.

And, you know,

we got to get to all of our businesses

into our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I might be abusing your time.

No, for one more member

But which health

and healthy equity groups

would you say are the most

engaged in advocating

for expanded broadband

access for telehealth?

Oh, my gosh, there must be.

Let me think how many others, over 200

that are signed up as our sponsors.

So it goes from anywhere

from Planned Parenthood

to the federal equal

federal quality quality,

federal qualified health centers

to community health centers,

to doctors, to you name it.

They are signed up on on the telehealth.

I'm really confident.

It has been a difficult road because

with the leadership of the Senate

as well as the Senate,

the Assembly, we have agreed

that we pay 100 percent parity

back to doctors for telehealth

and department health care services

does not agree with this.

And so we are beating

heads as we speak.

But our goal is to make sure

it's Parodies at 100 percent.

But, you know,

this got through unanimously,

both in the budget,

both on the Assembly and the Senate

and through the health committees

and on our floor.

And I believe it goes

to the floor over into the

Senate next week or soon.

So

a lot of good stuff.

And, you know, when I see my

my good friend, Senator Caballero, who's

fighting the fight with me, but,

you know, it's really true.

Women get the stuff done.

And we were hand in hand.

We need to get this.

And we know the importance

to get it to our rural

and our urban deserts.

Thank you, thank you, thank you,

Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry,

we appreciate your leadership

in the legislature.

Now I'd like to introduce Senator Anna Caballero

Senator Anna Caballero represents

California's 12th District,

which includes the Salinas Valley,

Some Benito County, Merced County

and portions of Stanislaus Mandera

and Fresno counties.

Senator Caballero

is the author of Senate Bill Twenty Eight

The Rural Broadband and Digital

Infrastructure Video Competition

Reform Act of 2021.

A longtime digital equity champion,

we are proud to welcome Senator Caballero

to connecting California.

Senator Caballero know.

Thank you so much and

good good morning.

I'm not sure if it's

my days and nights are all mixed up.

Good afternoon.

I want to thank you very much

for inviting me to speak at the Michelson

Digital Equity Event,

and good to see my good friend

Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry

This has long been a passion of hers.

And whenever she said I agree with.

So I'm really glad to see that she

she was right before me.

So thank you for the opportunity

to talk about SB 28, which is a bill

that will ensure that

California, twenty

one years after the 21st

century, can close our digital divide

and provide robust digital

infrastructure to all communities,

while ensuring access at the net

to ensure that it's access to

the Internet is not based on

income discrimination.

First, SB 28 put

state assets to work.

And what that means is that it requires

the CPUC DG, the Department

of Technology, Caltrans,

Department of Education

and any other relevant state agencies

to inventory their state resources

that we can put to be made

available for broadband infrastructure

with minimum down

download speeds of 100

megabits per second.

It requires the state

to create a licensing agreement

so that the state can readily contribute

these resources to

infrastructure development

by any public or private effort.

And it takes a really broad

view of state resources.

It could include real property

to site broadband equipment

and rights of ways

that could be used for routing, fiber

and even wireless spectrum

that could be used for bandwidth capacity

so that it doesn't matter

whether it's the Department

of Fish and Wildlife

that may have an office

in Modoc County or Caltrans right away.

We can contribute these assets

to make sure that we're

creating public private partnerships

to deploy faster

and more affordable

Internet access.

So that's that's number

that's number one.

We can make it easier for us to do

municipal broadband

development with SB 28.

And second, the bill

amends for the first time

a statute called the Digital

Infrastructure Video

Competition Act of 2006 for DIVCA

DIVCA provides companies a state wide,

10 year long franchise license

to deploy digital video services.

And while there are a number

of DIVCA license holders

in California providing

digital video services,

five of them provide broadband

down the same network pathway

to ninety seven percent

of the state's subscribers.

And this is important because

they're the ones that have bundled

these services all together.

And the reason it's important

is because the federal government

regulates the broadband

and the state regulates the

video services.

And to the extent

they've bundled them together,

it becomes an important discussion

to see where those services are deployed.

So the prior to DIVCA

these franchise holders

had to negotiate

with each local government to gain

subscriber access

to a service territory.

So they had to negotiate

400 separate agreements

around the state.

And I remember those discussions

because I was on the city council

where we had some lengthy negotiations

with our local

provider, our local cable provider,

because we wanted to ensure that they

they had a reasonable rate

that our residents could afford

and that they had the

the kinds of services that people wanted.

And in in our community,

it was Spanish language services.

And so they had to negotiate with us.

And when DIVCA was was passed

in the early 2000s,

it enacted it basically took

that authority away

from local government

and created one statewide

license franchise agreement

and made it easier

for them

to access the public's right away

in order to be able to put in cable.

And so this DIVCA

license is really important,

because the main requirement

in signing that license was that

they would build

the infrastructure

in a way that did not redline

poor and rural communities

and that they they

they provided access

to them as well .

And so they cannot discriminate.

That's that's the bottom line.

They have to build out their their

their system without discrimination.

And part of that.

Is that they would

self report their service areas,

that they would be

providing the service in.

And so it's been 15 years

since DIVCA’s enactment

and the franchise rights

acquired by these five companies.

These five digital video businesses

basically has has provided them

with this opportunity to do a build out.

And that same network

pathway that first delivered pay-TV

to consumers now delivers

a bundle of consumer services,

most notably broadband.

So the current DIVCA franchisee

franchises often deliver pay-TV,

broadband, voice

IP and home security

all through the same network.

And consumers have one cable

that comes into their home,

not four separate networks.

One bill that comes from

the franchise, not four.

So the cable companies

and the telecommunication

telecommunication companies

didn't go back and build

multiple networks.

Instead, they operate one

network's mix and mingle

the bits of data on that network,

no matter if it's digital

or video or otherwise.

And the reason I talk about

this is what the cable

companies are arguing is that is

that we're trying to control

their broadband.

And in reality, all we want

to do is get data

about where they're deploying that the

the video services

that we can regulate

since it's all together,

we're going to end up

with information for both.

And and we want that information

in real granular data.

That's what SB 28

does, is it says give us

you have information on almost

to the household level where you're

where you're you're

providing your services.

we just want to know, we want CPUC to know

where that you're

providing those services

so we can determine

are you redlining?

And if you are, it's prohibited

and you can't do it.

And in the bill,

we forgive past sins

so that we're we're not

we're not interested in going

and taking away their license.

We want them to build

and we want them

to build into our communities.

And if they're not going to,

we need to know and we need to, then

when that's when you get into

to discussions about

the Aguiar-Curry bill

which is then we want to use

the cast of funds that are so important

to to help create these public private

partnerships to be able to do them

the build out.

the CPUC does not receive

sufficient self reported data

from the franchisees to know

whether Californians

have access to the services

in a nondiscriminatory manner.

And so, SB-28 reforms DIVKA

requiring granular data

to be reported to the CPUC

so that we can have

an accurate accounting

of who's researched

receiving services or not.

And I will tell you

that during this Covid crisis,

I've had regular

monthly meetings

into the districts with my House meetings

that would normally be in person.

And people have had to go to the library

to sit outside the library

to be able to access that Internet.

It's a hundred degrees in the summer

and they're sitting in the cars.

And in the winter,

when we're doing them at night,

it is, you know, 50 degrees

and they're sitting in the car. So.

So I have a really good idea

in my district

where the services are provided

and where they're not.

And we wanted to know from the companies

specifically so that

we can start deploying

the resources that we need.

The other thing that our bill does is

it puts local government

back on the table.

And when the license

is coming up for renewal

and they're having to explain

where they deployed resources and

and if it's if it's

physically impossible

for them to provide a service,

we're not asking them to provide it.

We'll come up with other solutions

using our fund, our service fund.

But but they can't.

They can't just continue

not to provide services

to poor communities, and so what

what this bill does is provide

an opportunity for local government.

It's why why I've got CSAC

and the League of Cities in support,

because they want

to be back to the table.

They want to be part of this discussion.

And this bill will encourage discussions

between the franchisees, the CPUC

and local government

prior to the 10 year license

renewal.

And and it it makes

the make sure that the

obligations are being kept,

that the lack of access to advanced

digital networks

is not based on discrimination,

and that we can pull our entire state

into the 21st century.

And so with that,

I'll I'll finish.

And I need your help,

we just need to get it passed.

You know, there's

a full court press going on

and a lot of things that are being said

that are really not true.

And it's this has been very surgical.

We don't want to take away licenses.

We're not working towards that.

We're working towards access.

Thank you so much,

Senator Caballero.

We couldn't agree more holding

franchisees accountable

to what they're promising

is absolutely critical

to getting us closer

to digital equity

for all Californians.

One question from our audience,

Senator, if that's OK.

OK, the bill  includes

the word rural in its title,

but does it also help

under connected urban communities?

It does.

Basically, the the the

the original act

had the word rural in it.

And so we just we're

not changing the name of the act.

We're just going along with it.

But it really is.

The bill helps to.

To

provide it's this it

it, practically speaking,

will help in urban areas as well.

And, you know, I have some

some great visuals.

We started working with an organization

out of Fresno that took

these particular companies

give data to the FCC,

which is a regular federal

regulatory agency

that regulates broadband

and they regulate broadband,

looking at broadband as an entertainment

service as opposed to a

a necessary service like utilities.

And so they're going to have to

they're going to have to

do they're they're regular.

They're going to have to

change the regulatory process.

And I'm hoping they'll do it during this.

This

new administration.

But what we have is we have a map

that shows what we've been told

in the Fresno area,

which is a highly urbanized area

in the Central Valley.

And it shows the promises

that have been made in terms of

of a service area.

And then what what is

the overlay is what they the information

they've given to the FCC.

And and and while.

Well, that's good data.

If you overlay them,

you see it looks like Swiss cheese.

And there are all of these gaps in Fresno

where there is no no, no Internet

or broadband services being provided.

And my guess is,

if someone takes a look at it

and knows Fresno very well,

that they will see

that the communities

that are not receiving

the service in the area,

although it's been promised,

are the poorer neighborhoods.

And and so what we want

is even more granular data,

so that we're many times

with the with

the companies will do is say,

oh, we're we're providing

service to the census tract.

But when you get into

the detail of the whole census

track is not receiving the information.

Only the people that

are wealthy in that census

track are receiving

receiving the broadband

high speed Internet. So.

So we we need that data

if we're really going to do

the kinds of oversight,

we need that data in order to

in order to be able

to determine what

what who is receiving the service

and who's not and

and are they being redlined 

Thank you.

Thank you.

And one last question

you both mentioned to our audience,

if they can reach out to your offices

to get engaged and involved,

they definitely should.

What should our audience members

tell their own elected officials

about why they should

vote for your bills?

Well, I think I think what's important is

if you think it is important

to have data to determine

whether a cable company

is meeting its its agreements,

because this is an agreement

that has been that

was part of the original bill,

if you believe it's important

for there to be access.

Regardless of income,

then they need

they should vote for the bill,

and it's it is it

that the companies have

an important responsibility

to to all Californians.

They were given an economic benefit

of one franchise license.

That's it.

And they don't have to go around

and negotiate with

with four hundred entities.

And if you're going

to take away the right

of local government to

to make some comments and

and express concerns

about what kind of services

their community needs then and

and put it in one

statewide franchise

again, which has economic value,

it has saved them

hundreds of millions of dollars.

Then they have to live

up to their promise

if they made the promise.

And so they ought to be willing

to give us the data that we need

and they need to negotiate with us.

We've asked them negotiate with us

if we've asked for.

We're we're we're we're

we understand the need for

for confidentiality,

you know,

for the protection of the public.

We're not asking this to say,

oh, you know,

Sally’s house down

at the corner, gets it.

But Mabel's house doesn't.

That information

is not what we're asking for.

We're asking for the

the data as to exactly

where they're providing their services,

what their what their

what they plan to do in the future,

because it may be they'll say,

oh, you know what,

we're going to get there,

but it's going to take us

a couple more years.

Fine. That works for us.

But but then in a couple more years,

we're going to come back and say,

you still haven't done it.

There is no requirement

that if they make a promise,

that they actually comply with it

because they've made a promise.

They have and they made a promise.

And they

and if they haven't complied with it,

we just need to know, is it money?

Is it that you're never going to do it

because there are

physical impediments to it?

So then how can we devise a system

that's going to work?

Miguel, just so you know, our Bill AB 14

is going to be here July 5th

in the Senate Communications

Committee with Senator Hueso.

So if anybody wants to get on

and watch that hearing and do a me too

or send letters in, both Anna

and I would love to have

your support by letters.

I mean, I talked to our committee,

to the committee,

to Senator Hueso,

as well as to the governor.

I mean, they need to know we cannot wait

on it.

Anna and I are not waiting

Nina not waiting.

We need this done now.

And my bills up in the assembly privacy

on Thursday, July 1st,

we have next next week.

Got a few more days.

Cecile is absolutely correct.

You can just add on as I met you.

You don't have to have any detail on it.

You just say I'm from so-and-so,

from this community.

And if you're from the country,

if you're a resident of a community

of a of a member

of the committee, that's even better.

Let's see.

Even better.

Great, you've both mentioned

timeline a little bit.

There's been chatter in Sacramento

about some elected officials

saying that we should stagger

Governor Newsom seven

billion dollar proposal over the course

of a couple of years.

How does that impact our ability

to get closer to digital equity?

Well, some of the money has to be spent

within three years,

so we don't there's

not a lot of time for wasting time

to not get these bills through.

We need to take advantage

of every penny that's offered.

And as you may have seen last night,

the president's looks like he's

well on his way.

Hopefully get signed is on infrastructure

and broadband is a big piece of it.

And we want to be ready.

You know, the longer we wait.

My bill has the urgency on it.

So it has to get done.

We wanted to get done

before the end of the year.

Signed, sealed and delivered

sooner than later.

So we don't have time to waste.

We got kids that need

to use the Internet.

We need to get the data.

I mean, as Senator Caballero said,

we have to get this moving along

and there are ways to do it.

And if we need to go around them,

these three women

are working on those projects are

going to make sure it's done.

Fantastic, thank you so much.

Truly appreciate

both of your leadership

in our state legislature.

Now it's my pleasure to introduce

our last keynote

speaker, Senator Lena Gonzalez.

Senator Gonzalez represents

California's thirty-third

district, which includes South

East Los Angeles Signal Hill.

Portions of South

Los Angeles and Lakewood

and her hometown of Long Beach.

Senator Gonzalez

is the author of Senate Bill

four the Broadband for All Act,

a longtime advocate for digital equity.

We are proud to welcome back

for a second time

to Connecting California.

Senator, Lena Gonzales

Senator.

Hi, everyone, and thank you

for joining us today.

I'm State Senator Lena

Gonzalez, proudly

representing Long Beach, my hometown

and southeast Los Angeles.

I'm here to discuss

Senate Bill four,

which is a critical measure

to help close the digital

divide both during

and after the COVID 19 pandemic.

While different,

SB four is a continuation of the effort

I put forward last year,

even before Covid with SB 1130.

I also want to mention

that I'm a proud coauthor of AB 14

by Assemblywoman Aguilar-Curry.

And I'm excited for

our continued work on this

pressing issue moving forward

and through the legislature as we speak,

according to the most recent California

Broadband Council report.

Twenty three percent

of California housing

units home to eight point

four million residents

don't have a broadband subscription.

Roughly six hundred seventy four thousand

households lack high speed broadband.

That's three hundred and five

thousand in urban areas

and three hundred sixty nine

thousand in rural areas.

A lack of access to High-Speed

Internet was an issue in our communities

even before this pandemic took hold.

And that was evident

in our education community in particular.

The need for modern

infrastructure has been greatly amplified

with the movement of health care,

work and education

to online platforms

in response to COVID 19

across the state.

We are seeing examples

of how the digital divide is

preventing Californians

from engaging in critical

digital activities,

whether it's being seeing students

having to go to a Taco Bell

parking lot in Salinas

to get Wi-Fi connections,

to do their homework,

or older Californians

who do not have fast

enough Internet to receive

telehealth services

or even to connect with families.

A lack of long term investment

in 21st century ready

broadband technologies is a key driver

of the existing digital

divide in California.

SB four will begin

to provide the investment needed

to build fiber

connectivity to every home, school

and business in California.

Specifically, this bill will redefine

the eligibility requirements

for the California Advanced Services

Fund to enable infrastructure projects

to be built in unserved

and underserved communities.

This change in criteria

will help local governments

and Internet service

providers of all sizes

to apply for grants

and at the same time invest

in 21st century Internet infrastructure

that can meet Californians

everyday needs.

Currently, the eligibility

requirements for the Advanced Services

Fund are tied directly

to low Internet speeds,

making most interested entities

who would like to deploy fast speeds

in eligible for grant funds.

SB four will also stabilize

the funding source

for the Advanced Services Fund

by extending the sunset on the program

and surcharge for an additional 10 years

while capping the former

percentage based fee

to 150

million dollars a year.

This is a similar formula

to our existing nine one one surcharge.

This bill will provide

critical funding grants

to unserved and underserved communities

to build High-Speed Fiber

broadband networks

at minimum speeds of 100 megabytes

per second download

and 20 megabytes

per second upload.

This measure provides

a solution to chronic Internet issues

in all communities throughout California.

SB four does not pick winners and losers.

It simply enables grants to be awarded

based on Internet access and speeds

wherever you are in the state.

Only 59 percent of rural

homes with school age

children have broadband.

And in Los Angeles,

where I'm from, one quarter of students

don't have access to the Internet.

In Oakland, it's a third.

The need for better Internet

access is truly a

statewide issue.

It's critical that urban

districts like mine

and rural districts like my colleague,

Assemblymember, Aguiar-Curry

that we represent

all work together

to ensure that broadband

for all is truly a reality.

SB four has a growing and diverse

coalition of supporters

that I'm really proud of.

It's made up of 100 organizations,

including local governments,

education advocates, labor

unions, small Internet service

providers, businesses and many more.

I am proud of this

excellent coalition.

And while we've made great

progress with SB four,

there's still so much more work to do.

As before will be heard

in the Assembly Communications

and Conveyance Committee

on Wednesday, July seven.

Let's be ready.

I urge all of our supporters

to reach out to their representatives

and members of each committee

that SB-4 is heard

and to express how crucial this measure

is in closing the digital divide

for any organization that is interested

in supporting SB-4

I encourage you all

to submit a support letter

or contact my office

to be added to our larger

support coalition.

I really look forward

to advancing this effort

in the legislature.

It's my priority, Bill.

And ultimately getting

SB-4 signed into law by Governor Newsom

is top of my agenda.

If you have any questions or suggestions

for SB four, please email or call my office.

We're ready to listen.

Thank you to everyone, and especially

thank you to the Michelson 20MM

and California Community Foundation

for organizing this amazing event.

We appreciate you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez,

and to all our elected officials

for your leadership

to bring this all together

and to add even more color to the current

digital equity landscape.

We've invited our friend, Mr.

Falcon, senior legislative counsel

at the Electronic Frontier

Foundation, to join us today. 

Ernesto represent EFF’s advocacy

on behalf of its members

and all consumers

for a free and open Internet

for state legislatures and Congress.

Falcon’s work includes pushing the state

of California to pass

the strongest net neutrality

law in the country

in response to federal repeal efforts,

as well as leading EFF’s,

research and advocacy

to promote universally available,

affordable and competitive

fiber broadband networks.

Welcome, Ernesto.

And thank you for

for that introduction and

and thank you so much to

all of our legislators

who are really kind of leading the fight.

You know, these are the

folks who I look to in

Sacramento as the folks who get it

and as well as the ones

who are the go to people for

for solving this problem.

And so, you know,

as Miguel mentioned,

I'm going to bring together

kind of the the ideas and the themes and

and string all together,

because there's a story

that's being told in real time now.

And there's a history here

that we have to understand

in order to understand

what the better future will be.

So

it was mentioned,

I am lead researcher

at the EFF on 21st century access.

And how do we get it to all people?

I've been digging into this

this issue for many years

with the assistance

of a variety of of engineers and folks

in the financial markets and other

leaders among industry

in the public sector to really kind of

bring this together in California is is

is a place where

we could be a global leader.

Right.

We can be

a part of the world

that people look towards as the leader

on on cheap, fast access for all people.

We have the capacity to do it.

But the question is, what's missing?

What have we been doing?

So, you know, historically,

for years, decades even,

we have spent an awful

lot of money subsidizing

the same small number of large

national private players,

your AT&T, your Comcast, your Charters.

And I can say definitively

the over-reliance on them

has been a core part of our mistake.

They will never, ever,

no matter how many carats,

if you will give them,

they'll never be

the source of the solution.

If we are interested in this

basic idea of universality,

every single person's connected

affordability, meaning it's at prices

that that all ranges

of people, of income, of of all ranges

of income can afford.

If we truly believe

everyone deserves access

and in 21st century readiness,

which means not a basic minimum

speed or some sort of

slow network, they kind of

barely let you connect to the Internet.

But real robust connectivity

that lets you do all things

that are available

to the Internet regardless

of your socioeconomic status.

So, you know, you've heard SB-28.

I think that a copy of this bill,

that really is kind of the

the necessary rethinking of

how do we treat this as as a necessary

central infrastructure

rather than a private luxury.

And how do we start asking

the correct questions

from a policy standpoint of

where are you not going to be serving

and and have clear clarity,

I will say, from the

the reason

why even your densely populated,

really lucrative communities

like Los Angeles and

San Francisco and Oakland, places

that really have no reason

to have the the digital

divide, where they have

the core part, the part of the problem

there is your big private players.

They look at communities

and they look at it.

They break it down like this.

Which house?

Which area can I invest

money into building

21st century access?

And who will pay a high enough bill

to pay me back in the three

to five year window?

And I'm here to tell you,

based on just the the fundamental

math of that means discrimination,

because that that isn't

necessarily mean like

who is commercially feasible, you know,

which is the term

they like the over subscribed to.

But it's not what they're talking about.

They're talking about

who's going to give me

a fast and big profit

on a very short turnaround.

And, you know, that's

a dynamic that's driven by Wall

Street investor expectations, dividends,

all the quarterly reporting of profits,

all these things

that that national publicly

traded companies

deal with as a means of appeasing

a completely different

status of of holders

of these companies.

Certainly not something

that's really well

equipped to meet a community need,

particularly when we talk about

low income urban

and especially rural.

So,

you know, it's time to really

dig into what's called digital redlining,

because it is pervasive in a state.

There's been two fairly

consequential studies,

one from the Greenlining

Institute for Oakland

and another from the University

of Southern California

for Los Angeles County.

They show pretty clear

and very even in places

it would be profitable to serve

every single person, profitable.

Right.

You would make money on this

at some time frame

with an investment

that they are choosing the extra profits

you gain from discrimination, meaning,

you know, prioritizing

only the high income neighborhoods

and leaving the low

income neighborhoods behind

which deliver a discriminatory profit.

But they are doing that

in a systemic way,

that’sleaving behind black or brown

neighborhoods all throughout the state

and for no good reason.

Right.

There is no valid argument

for from an economic standpoint for them.

It's purely a super profit

that you can make

in the absence of regulation

and the absence of policy

to weigh against that.

And then in terms of

SB 4 and AB 14

From Assemblymember

Aguiar-Curry and Senator Lena Gonzales

you're in kind of

merging what the governor's plan,

you know, this really boils down

to one one simple premise.

The the big private players

have have been forced to build

an old infrastructure decades ago,

you know, in the era of monopolies and,

you know, a very different history

than we have now.

And we now have this

like systemic problem where

lots of areas, not just like

distant, far off rural,

but a whole ton of California

is no longer accessing

High-Speed Internet

ready for the 21st century.

We are accessing

barely good enough

speeds at very high,

very high price points.

And you have large, large swaths of areas

that have no access.

And what Governor Newsom has proposed

is, is this kind of mixed idea

of several steps. One,

and then we an easy

way to think about it, right.

Is it seven billion dollars

in terms of investing

in several different

tranches of approaches?

In the most straightforward

way to think about this is,

you know, building the roads

that enable commerce, that enable

being an active participant in society,

that the state will build the freeway

highway portion of of the 21st

century Internet, which is that's open

access, middle mile fiber network.

And the idea is the state government

will be responsible through Caltrans

and other agencies to extend the capacity

connected to the modern Internet,

a 21st century access

to all blocks in all corners

of the state of California,

so that there isn't a situation where

even if your community was motivated

to come up with own solution,

that you just don't really have

a way to connect to to the

to the high capacity end of the Internet.

The you know,

the fastest portion is delivered

those fast speeds.

So the state with

the state would intend to spend four

and a half billion dollars to solve

that for everyone

and then set aside

to two separate sets of money,

one called a loan loss reserve,

about five million dollars there,

and then grants through the California

Advanced Services Fund updated

to meet modern needs.

And the combination of those two,

we'll talk about

the loan loss reserve piece,

what's very innovative,

what California is doing.

But it's absolutely essential

that we do as a state.

And there's a reason why

there's opposition from AT&T and cable.

And I'll explain that in a sec.

is the state wants

to bolster and build up

local community options,

rely on non-profits, cooperatives,

school districts,

local governments

to the exclusion

of the large national players.

And I think that's perfectly fair

and rational and correct,

because we already know

what the for profit

private model of distribution

of broadband looks like.

We live it today.

We know what it feels like under

even under pandemic situations

where we throw a lot of money at it.

And that was, you know, very slow,

expensive mobile hotspots of low

income people so that they can

remote connected schools.

We've lived the experience.

And so if you if you connect

what I was talking about

earlier about the profit

driven, short return,

fast profit approach to deployment

with with our lived experience

during the pandemic, you'll understand

why it's time to start thinking

about what our other alternative

local options are.

And it's time to build those options

in order to solve this problem

in the near future.

And, you know, some of the

you know, an interesting study

that was mentioned earlier, the New America

Foundation, folks,

this is a think tank

out in Washington, D.C.

that does really good

analysis of prices.

People pay for broadband

and have a great study called

the cost of connectivity.

In that study, it shows

Los Angeles pays

somewhere around three to four times

the average of what

you should be paying for

broadband access.

And the places that have

the globally competitive best prices,

meaning the best, fastest Internet

pricing in the world

are local governments.

Chattanooga, Tennessee,

being one of the leads,

and then Seoul South Korea

being in the other

list of private versions.

And that that really kind of goes to show

just the amount of potential

that's being suppressed

about what we can deliver,

you know, as a community,

especially in our large cities,

but also just the fact that even

your ruled territories of California,

you know, if you enable the public model,

if you enable the entities

who are not driven by

fast rate of return, a fast

profit are more motivated

to say, you know what,

we're willing to look at this

from a 30 to 40 year

investment plan and a 30 to 40 year plan.

And we just need to be

make it be sustainable

not super profitable,

not not a way to pay dividend holders.

You'll be surprised to the extent

that the cheap, fast Internet

of the 21st century

can reach lots, lots

more people than it is today.

And a great example of this,

you know, to kind of to parse out

and pick out the private players.

Frontier Communications,

they're one of the largest

rural broadband providers

in the state of California

About two million Californians use them.

They went to bankruptcy.

Right. They.

Went to bankruptcy

because of one simple thing

they neglected as far

as long as they could

to invest their networks

for as long as they could

to milk the dying

assets of 1990s, 1980

era copper lines

that they run today.

And the reality is, people eventually

had to find any other means

to get a little bit better

speed of Internet

in order to access the modern

the modern services

and applications we use.

And it happened so fast

that they just weren't ready for

you know, they expected perpetual

captivity of users to pay for,

you know, long ago

paid off infrastructure.

And when when the switch happened,

too fast for them, you know,

What they ended up doing

is they go to investors

and their stockholders.

They said, hey,

if we're allowed to think about this

from like a 10 year window

rather than the three to five year

window of profitability,

but the big national players

traditionally operate under.

turns out there's

millions of people

we can connect to fiber, gigabit

fiber, you know, fast,

cheap Internet for profit.

And they had to negotiate

with stockholders and investors

to allow them to take a slightly

longer term view.

And I say all that because

it's very important to understand

about your public entities

and your and your local

operatives and your non-profits.

they're not subject

to that type of restraint, right.

They can look at this and say,

if the states want to back our effort

to connect all people, low income,

high income doesn't matter.

Just the nondiscriminatory universal build-out

that can be sustainable on its own.

As long as we take

a Long-Term View,

then, you know, it can't be done.

it can be done

lots of other parts of the country,

and it's just not being done

to the extent it should be in California.

Absent Governor Newsom’s

Plan, Governor Newsome's plan

would essentially

be the largest investment

in the history of the United States

in public local infrastructure

that will be able to do things

like allow kind of your at cost

your profit offerings

for low income people

because taking one step back.

We often talk about

competition in this space,

and your competitive rates

are probably somewhere

around 40 to 60 dollars

per month is what you should be paying.

I suspect almost no one here,

with great exception, paid

that little for broadband,

very fast broadband.

I suspect most of us paid twice

or three times that price.

But even that might be too much for,

you know, people

of the most limited income.

and you will never get a private

profit driven entity

to solve that problem,

because it's ultimately a problem

that is premised on

how do we deliver access at at cost?

How do we deliver it

at a sustainable way to deliver

a quality service, quality access

at the lowest price point?

And to give you a real world example of

when a public entity engages

in this issue of equity

and how to deliver access.

Chattanooga, Tennessee,

as I mentioned earlier,

the world's

fastest and best price

ISP run by tiny local government.

Right.

Not a big national player.

When the pandemic

hit them in that community,

they basically tackled

their Low-Income Access issue

by simply by simply kind

of leveraging the

existing infrastructure.

They already paid for all the fiber wires

they already built into all these homes,

but without discrimination

and calculated out

that if they can raise 

8.2 million dollars in charitable giving,

they can provision

free Internet at 100, down

100 megabits down,

megabit up, which is a very fast speed

far beyond your today's needs.

But but and will be adequate

to handle years out

in advance of future needs

for free for 10 years

at eight point two million dollars

for seventeen thousand students.

So you did to do the quick math there.

It's basically at the zero profit.

At cost approach for them

was three dollars and fifty cents

per month for kid.

And that is just not doable

by private sector entities.

Right.

They have to make

some sort of money from this.

They can't just simply say, like,

you know, how do we do this

without making any money?

Well, your public sector

entities, your school

districts, your libraries,

you know, these are the players

we have to empower.

If we are serious about

not just universal access

to the infrastructure,

but affordable access

at a point that all people

can make use of.

So, you know, Governor Newsom's planned.

And to kind of recap

and to put simply is

the state will build

the highway portion of the Internet.

It will empower all the local players

of all walks and stripes

that are not the big national AT&T,

Comcast of the world,

but the local player

to come up with their own solutions .

And the state will will back there,

play with long term,

you know, 30 to 40 year financing,

you know, dirt cheap debt,

as well as grants

to help kind of cover

some of the most expensive parts of a

of a network to build.

And I'm here to say,

if that were to become law,

you will look at the digital divide

in a historical context in the state

10 years from now.

And you'll you will think back

and remember it as the

you know, the story of those little kids

going to that Taco

Bell parking lot to do homework.

That will be a historical footnote.

Right.

And so who's opposing 

that? Well, it's it's the you know,

it's the AT&T and cable companies, right?

It's the folks who have no have

nothing to gain with a change of status

quo and everything to gain

from from maintaining the status quo.

They profited handsomely

from the pandemic, right?

You look at any of their profit margins

in any of the challenges,

none of these companies lost money.

Right.

All these companies,

because of the service,

they sell an essential service,

which I think last poll I

saw from Consumer Reports

shows about supermajority.

Three out of four of us in this country

consider broadband to be

the same as water and electricity

in terms of importance

in your livelihood.

And so you have nearly unregulated

private monopolies

in many places, selling

an essential service

that you had to buy.

And anything that would disrupt

the extremely cozy situation

they have is going to be opposed.

They don't like the idea

of building local expertize

so that when should

the next pandemic hit

or the next disaster, if it requires

an emergency response

and all of us coming together,

they don't like the idea that if you

as a community say

we need a solution

and your school district

can come up with it

rather than the Comcast,

they don't like that idea.

They want only you to come to them

at the end of this.

And so I think it's it's very important

that Governor Newsom’s

plan passes as written,

because what they are

attempting to do

and I wrote a piece on this,

but I'm happy to share it, folks

would be happy to share

with the community here.

But what they're asking

actively to do is ask the state

we're rather in the state,

get too involved in

building this out themselves,

to come up with these own solutions

and the alternatives

we have refused

to build ourselves

as the large national players,

how about we just subsidize us enough

for another seven billion dollars.

Right.

And I could tell you

that would essentially

light that money on fire

And we will have nothing to show for it

after the fact.

And I hope that all of us kind of

can share in the commitment

to calling our state legislators,

our assembly members, our state senators,

to demand that they support

Governor Newsom’s plan

and to also take that extra step

to support the bills

that have been proposed,

that have been talked about,

about our fellow legislators here,

because each of those,

are a critical piece

of the better solution

and a better future. Right.

It's time to start building

robust connectivity.

Not anything goes minimum

minimum offerings

without, you know,

without any expectations.

It's time to start treating

this infrastructure

as an essential service

because we don't regulate

it as such right now.

And it's time to start

really putting equity

at the front of the stage

of an essential service.

you know, this is no longer a private luxury.

Where

it is acceptable for profiting

from discriminatory deployment is

is a means of doing business

in the state of California.

You know, EFF has called on

both at the federal as well,

the state level,

and we work on this issue.

but the issue of digital

redlining in particular

is really near and dear to us.

And we know we are affected saying

this should just be abolished

as a matter of law,

just like we have done in the past.

And, you know,

my hope is through our collective effort,

we can we can get there.

So I’ll go ahead and pause there 

and I'm happy to answer

if there's any questions that came up

on the plans or kind of

the nature of the situation today.

Thank you, Ernesto.

So one question did come up

from our audience,

many rural counties are understaffed

and are not actively

making plans for bringing fiber

to their communities

and don't have the capacity

to take on these projects.

Do you think there is a role

for the creation of new broadband

cooperatives to assist the counties

or potentially other solutions?

Yes, I think absolutely.

So I think there's a few things

to to think through here.

We have friends in other

parts of the country that are better

for solving this issue for themselves.

And I think the state can play

a very critical role in

tapping into the expertize

that does exist in the in the communities

that have been building

in lots of places.

And in helping bring that knowledge

and resource to to us in this state,

you know, if we think

back to rule electrification.

Right, that's often

the means of comparable here.

And I think it's fair.

It wasn't that the government

just said, here's

a bunch of money now go build

what the government actually did.

was it created technical training, 

It had partnerships,

direct relationship

with the communities to help

teach them how to build

the solution for themselves.

And that's what launched lots of these

electric cooperatives.

Most of them in California

have been bought up because of PG&E

and the private utilities.

They bought up most of the

local cooperatives that were

that were built over the in the past.

But we still have a few.

And in those few,

you know, they're very active,

actively engaged

in this effort too

I think it's time to think of how do we

how do we train up people

to form their own cooperatives in the

if they if they lack

some other local

means of building it up?

You know, it's it is

local ownership is is a big way to

you know, it's how

we solvedelectricity. And,

you know, I can say definitively

and I'll take a quick step back,

and because I think I skipped this step

about why the emphasis on fiber.

Because I think it's very important.

Understand this,

because it explains a lot of what

what industry has been doing here

and not not doing, for that matter.

But, you know, I've seen enough examples

of extremely difficult

rural areas of this country

being built with gigabit,

you know, affordable fiber capacity

by local cooperative,

you know, into

to really come to a conclusion.

And this is you know, this how they

how they explain it to me.

And I agree.

It's like, look, if we figured out

how to run a electricity

line to this house,

which electricity is not a simple thing.

Right.

That's a that's a complicated

engineering feat as well.

If we figured that out,

there is no

technical leap to figure out

how to deliver broadband access

to this household too

you know, through a fiber line.

You know, it's like if you figured out

how to get that wire that delivers

electricity out to that place,

we are not talking about massive leaps

and steps beyond technological.

understanding how to do it again

with broadband access.

But but the core part

of the solution of rural

electrification was recruiting local

partners, training local talent,

teaching them how to build it

and run it themselves.

And I think the state of California

has a very important role.

If as a follow on in

terms of the the budgeting.

Right.

It's not just money

at the end of the day.

And I'll I'll add

just the separate from that question

and why I emphasize fiber.

The EFF is a, you

know, group of lawyers and engineers.

And we analyze this question

of what is 21st century access look like.

And one of the core things

that and we've all lived this experience,

you use more Internet tomorrow

than you used yesterday

Right.

Every handful of years.

You think back like, gosh,

I do so much more on the Internet now.

There's so many more things to do

and more applications and services.

And you go back 10 years,

you can see how much

less data traveled over the Internet

because of the fewer things

that were available

and the more they kept getting invented

and added to our life.

That trend, on average, is about twenty

percent growth in terms of

how much data we use per year by twenty

one percent more every year

for the last 40 years.

And so there's little reason

not to just presume and predict

and project our and base

our infrastructure planning

on a consistent growth

curve of needing more every year

for four decades on out.

And when you when you Adopt

that that understanding,

then you have to look at

what are your broadband options

that will deliver that,

because there's lots of broadband options

that will deliver a minimum speed,

but it's also their maximum potential.

Lots of wireless plays

that are like long distance or relying

on the copper network of the H.T.

Monopoly era, that

frontier communications is.

You still have people on today.

Those have reached their limits.

They don't really get

they can't get faster.

And you don't save money

by subsidizing those further.

You can't leverage investments

in there to deliver 21st century access.

You have to build it from scratch.

And these wires started being built.

Fiber optic wires

really start getting laid

in a large scale well in 2005.

And so the the value of the fiber line

does versus other options is

we haven't even invented

the computing hardware technology

to make the most of that wire.

So that same wire

That can do a hundred

symmetrical today,

can do a gigabit symmetrical

tomorrow, can do 10 gigabits

much of the day,

after all, with the same wire , because

it's the advancements

of our electronics

that will make more use of that

wire in in its capacity.

So you no longer

have to build new roads.

You don't have to build

new construction projects.

You're just you're done

once you've built it

and you're relying on,

you know, just advancements

of our technology

Energy to make more and more

use of the asset, the you know,

whether it's a state

ed or private entity,

you can keep using that as it

and I would say the projected

capacity available in these wires

versus where we are.

And on average consumption,

you're probably looking at 40

to 50 years of usage

before you have to worry about

congestion or limitations.

That's just not true

about any of the other

options that industry likes to

to tout wireless or satellite or

or relying on the old cable network.

These will not these

will not deliver

a consistent growth curve

that will meet the future.

And so if you don't build it now.

Right, we will hit this point

where we will have,

you know, the Internet we have today

will feel like the dial

up of yesterday.

And the pandemic,

I think, has been useful

as a learning experience here.

Lots of people have kind of basic

access out there.

Not enough people have really

robust connectivity to make full use

of the Internet as we needed it

when the pandemic hit.

You know, as I mentioned earlier, this 21

percent average growth curve,

the pandemic was only about double

that growth curve.

So so usage grew

by about 40 to 50 percent,

which means that

the Internet access you were you suddenly

found was insufficient

and had to start buying

a more expensive cable monopoly option

or if you haven't had that option.

That's basically what the Internet

would have been in 2023.

Right.

And so, you know, take

that knowledge and start

thinking like, well,

then what's 2025 going to look

like in 2020, 2030?

You need

robust connectivity

in all places, which is why

the governor's plan of just the state

deploying the capacity for all players,

for all people to

then come up with their

own local solutions

to leverage that asset

is is the means for it

to get to universality.

Definitely earning future proofing

that broadband is absolutely critical.

And you mentioned roles earlier,

one thing I did want to ask,

one of the sectors

that we've convened through

Connecting California

is the philanthropic sector

in terms of preparing

local municipalities

and other actors

to help leverage

these dollars that are coming

down the pipeline.

What role can philanthropy play?

So, you know, there's going to be

there needs to be a stable source

of activism and organization of,

you know,

going back a half a step here.

Everyone is impacted

by what the price of broadband is

Right.

And in various fields,

telehealth, low income access

and education access,

we're all impacted

if we have inferior infrastructure.

And so I think organizing those forces to

to go to their local leaders

or to come up with their own solutions,

you know, if they have an institution

that can kind of take a lead on it

and access the state money

that's made available.

If if we pass If we pass Governor Newsom’s plan,

you know, I think that's

a pretty critical role, because often

there's hesitancy, right?

There's a little bit of fear.

And I think it's perfectly fair.

But but you need leaders, right?

You need community, a handful community

to lead the charge.

And I and I can say there's

lots of rural county governments

that are that are eager

to get to get going

if they're able to be supported

by state financing.

But I also think

there's lots of cities

that are also eager

to tackle this challenge,

particularly when it comes

to low income access and urban.

And, you know, they will face

a whirlwind of opposition from,

you know, primarily from cable, you know,

and and in the rural teleco,

which is like Frontier

Communications and AT&T,

because, again, even

though they offer

even though they're not investing,

they still make a lot of money

from selling people their legacy,

old, slow, expensive stuff.

Right.

And as long as no one else has a switch

to something else

and you don't have an alternative, then,

you know, they can milk a dying asset for

for as long as that that works.

And we really have to be

willing to take matters in our own hands

and encourage and enable people

to take that, to be courageous,

to take matters and own hands,

because I suspect

once and this is what they fear,

like once the logjam is broken

and you have a few proof of concepts

and few public models and a few nonprofit

models out there,

confidence grows,

expertize grows. And,

you know, to give you like an example

of responsive ministry,

when Chattanooga happened.

Right, the world's fastest,

best price, ISP,

a little tiny city,

their revenues are extremely high

compared to the cost, the the a myth.

But I think industry likes

to put out there,

and I'm here to dispel it.

The broadband access

has never been cheaper and faster,

and it's getting cheaper and faster

by the day with the new infrastructure.

If you lack that new infrastructure,

you won't get those advantages right.

So, it's really important

to get the right wires down

to people, right?

The right capacity out.

But the revenues of Chattanooga

are exceeding their costs in a way that

that enabled them to do,

you know, 10 years free Internet

and things like that.

But they would what they wanted to do

originally was simply say, hey,

we're done building to

everyone in our city.

Let's just go to our

neighboring cities next,

because we have all this revenue.

We can reinvest back in this network

and keep expanding, keep expanding.

And I suspect if

we can get a few successful

seeds planted in this state,

those networks will flourish.

They will reach all

they will begin to reach people

beyond their original starting point.

And then we start

sending a shot clock of

when the digital divide ends,

because as as expertize

grows and more, these malls expand,

but aren't driven by short

term profits and fast profits

like the like the big nationals'.

There's little reason

why we can't get to

a hundred percent of people

at a price point

in a range of price points.

That makes it affordable.

Thank you so much, Ernesto.

There are several comments on the chat,

singing your praises

and singing the praises of Electronic

Frontier Foundation.

We are eternally grateful here,

Michelson 20MM, for your partnership.

So thank you to you

and thank you to all of

our speakers for their work

in getting us closer

to achieving digital equity

for all Californians.

Digital Equity in the California

Legislature was presented

by the Michelson 20MM Foundation 

in service

of advancing digital equity

for all students and families.

We want to thank our foundation partners,

the California Community Foundation,

the Silicon Valley Community Foundation

and Southern California Grantmakers.

We'll post the recording

of today's discussion

on our YouTube channel,

The Michelson 20MM Foundation by tomorrow.

The video will include

links in the description

so that you may join the Connecting

California LinkedIn group,

a dedicated space

to foster collaboration

in California, to advance digital equity

and close the divide

faster and together.

If you or your organization

want to become part of our digital equity

work, please reach out to me personally

at miguel@20mm.org

You can also stay engaged by signing up

for our newsletter

@20mm.org to receive news

and updates about Connecting California

as well as other

events and programs.

Thank you so very much

for joining us, everyone.

Have a great rest of the day.

Thank you.