Chair Readies Calif. Assembly Communications to Respond to Trump

You became chair of the Communications Committee in 2023. How long have you been interested in communications, and what do you find most compelling?

I worked in the industry, starting in 2007, before there was fixed wireless in Germany, [at] T-Mobile International. After the birth of my son, the communications division was integrated into Deutsche Telekom. And so I have a broad perspective on broadband and telecommunications. And it was mostly relevant when I moved back to the States, in 2012.

When I got elected to the Assembly [in 2018], I really wanted to be on [the Communications] Committee because there were and are very few women who understand the technical aspects of telecommunications. I've been on panels where I am the only woman -- most women get relegated to talking about [diversity, equity and inclusion]. And it's really important that not only we have women but women leaders who talk about not only the technical issues but access, affordability, diversity and inclusion. You need all the voices.

My dad was talking about the digital divide in the '90s … It's crazy that we're still having this conversation about the digital divide. COVID made it more apparent how critical it is to have broadband. We were always concerned about access, but access is a function of two things: infrastructure and affordability. When people are housing-insecure, it doesn't matter what voucher you ask them to get. If they’re housing-insecure, and they don't know if they can feed their kids, I'm not sure they're looking at broadband.

So, it’s a very complex subject. It's very challenging, and it's very fascinating.

What would you say were your committee’s top accomplishments in the last session?

People always look at bills as the success, [but] sometimes your measure of success is not a bill but it's an outcome. And one of the outcomes that I've been really pushing for is more accountability at the [California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)] and getting out their last-mile grants. And what we know is we have a huge story [about] the unprecedented investment in broadband in California -- and those grants weren't getting out.

So one of the things we did was work with the Budget Committee this past year to prioritize spending down the federal dollars before we spend all the state dollars. So the new funding agreement is about $500 million in state funds pushed out to later years after the American Rescue Plan Act and [the CPUC federal funding account (FFA)] funds and the BEAD deadlines have been met.

That's really important when I think about equity in California and how complicated it is for places that do not have advocates, and they're not typically the hot spots. We know we're going to have gaps, and so I think it's right that we have some state dollars in reserve in the future to kind of close those gaps, so we're really closing the digital divide once and for all.

You raised concerns in the summer about the CPUC’s pace in getting FFA money out the door [(see 2406050065)]. Has it improved?

They have made progress since June. It's a little tricky because it's too little, too late, and now people are getting confused. Like, “I've applied for FFA. Should I also apply for BEAD? Because I don't know if I'm gonna get FFA. There were some changes to the middle mile, so what's that going to come out of?”

I believe the CPUC’s intention was right. [The agency wanted to] be mindful and thoughtful about how we create maps of who are the underserved or unserved in California. So, I see that. And there were some very loud voices that asked for delays. But I ultimately worry that the confusion it causes with the delay, with applying for BEAD funding and all that, ultimately will not outweigh the benefit of the delay.

They've gotten $829 million out for projects in 35 counties so far -- either recommended or awarded -- and it's just, you know, we have a lot to go.

California received a $1.86 billion BEAD allocation. How big of an impact do you think that's going to make? Is it enough?

I think it's super important, but one of the things we're worried about in the Communications and Conveyance Committee is what does the Trump administration mean for the BEAD program?

And I know it's not a partisan issue. I've talked to Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Everybody has [constituents] who need access and have problems with affordability. But we worry about what's going to happen at the BEAD program. Without the $1.86 billion dollars in funding, we know we're not closing the digital divide in California.

And so I worry a little bit about what Trump's going to do to California and the BEAD program in general. I worry about the CPUC’s capacity to continually grant FFA grants while simultaneously following their BEAD timeline, which is concurrent now. I worry about applicants being confused about what to go for and [whether they should] double apply.

And the complication with the [California Department of Technology (CDT)] having [responsibility for] the middle mile and CPUC having the last mile -- there is a disconnect there. I have full confidence in the CDT. They're going forward, they stuck to their timelines, but I worry that there's going to be segments of the middle mile that will never connect anybody.

As a chair, what that means is those are things I'm very hawkishly watching out for.

You mentioned a disconnect between the CPUC and CDT. You had a 2024 bill that proposed creating a state broadband and digital equity commission and moving the CPUC and CDT broadband programs to that new office (see 2404250036). Why didn't that pass and do you plan on bringing it back in the new session?

I will never give up on this. So, it will come back in one form or another. We're still debating which form.

You're never going to get government efficiency [splitting last-mile and middle-mile responsibilities between two agencies].

I've also not been shy about saying the CPUC has too many responsibilities and they're not carrying out those to their full potential. They were set up to regulate a monopoly. If you've looked at the broadband space, it's not a monopolistic environment. And the CPUC is fundamentally not a great grant-making organization. They're constitutionally independent, so it's just not the right fit, but it's the fit we had. Let the CPUC really focus on what they need to do, which is clean, affordable, reliable energy.

How do the GOP wins in the presidential and congressional elections affect your priorities as a Democratic committee chair in California?

One of the most successful broadband programs ever was the [federal affordable connectivity program.] When the ACP funding went away, Republicans and Democrats wanted to bring it back, and they weren't able to do it under this last administration. And now the Universal Service Fund is in the courts, and we don't know what's going to happen and how they're going to go forward with that.

If that federal funding goes away, we’re talking about real people, people we know, that our kids go to school with, that will no longer have access. Those are people who can't do telehealth. Those are people who can't do their homework remotely.

So we're watching very carefully what is going on in Washington with the Universal Service Fund. There is no way in the current budget climate we're going to be able to compensate for the loss of those federal dollars. So we're trying to be creative, and we're watching.

We’re also watching the court case on digital discrimination. [Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D)] had her bill last year, and we expect it to come back. And we're monitoring actions if BEAD funding goes away.

What that means as chair is we're asking everybody to be flexible. We know that right in the middle of the session -- probably when we're having a committee hearing -- the rules could change. So that's the flexibility that we're trying to prepare everybody in our caucus for. We may have to shift paths a little bit halfway through the year. But we know that, and we're being proactive; that's half the battle.

You mentioned bringing back Bonta’s bill to prohibit digital discrimination as the FCC defined it. Last session, it passed the Assembly but stalled in the Senate [(see 2408160011)]. Does the bill need changes to get through the legislature?

I think the biggest thing will be what happens at the federal level. When the federal rules change -- and how they change -- will determine what we can and should do.

I don't think anybody in their right mind wants to see poorer people or lower-income people charged more for [less] service. So I think we should have rules [so] everybody understands this is the bright line, and when you cross it this is discrimination, and this is the fix-it process.

So, there are several options, but it would baffle my mind that anybody thinks it's OK to discriminate on digital access and cost and speed. Assemblymember Bonta has been a leader on this. I expect her to continue leading.

The line has to be very, very bright. And if you [create] a bright line, and give people lead time, most good actors won't cross it. And if they do, there should be consequences.

In the spring, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced a May budget revision that included taking back an earlier promise for additional funding for the state’s middle-mile network [(see 2405150035)]. Did that raise any concerns?

CDT had requested additional money. They didn't get it, and this is part of the problem. They would have to justify what they're doing with that extra money, but they can't prove that they're using all the money effectively now because we didn't have approved last-mile applications. So they're stuck in this catch-22. Why would you build out a segment that they may not even get last-mile funding for?

Intuitively, the stuff they were asking for, I think, makes sense, but until you get those awards and that's guaranteed, it's very hard to say we're going to take money in a year [when] we're trying to protect healthcare for low-income kids.

What would you like to see happen with the ACP? How valuable was the program in California?

The ACP was one of the most effective programs that we had. And there was no doubt that it was effective. The question is, how are they going to set up the rules? If you look at the difference between Lifeline and ACP, ACP had a much wider uptake because it was a very easy program to get out. Lifeline was a very difficult program to administer -- for certain very good reasons.

The voucher model is a really, really good one, and Lifeline has the problem with [eligible telecom carriers] and all these other things [about] who's a legitimate carrier. We just want people to have broadband. What's best would be to combine Lifeline and ACP into one program that's effective at getting people what they need.