Take Action Against CA 2022 Telecom Bill: SB.717

We Need Your Help!

Aug 25: CA Assembly Third Reading . . . must be voted through by the CA Senate by Aug 31.

Next, SB.717 will go to the CA Senate where it is supposed to be heard by

  1. Sen. Rules Committee — to have its trajectory in the Senate defined*
  2. Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications
  3. Full Senate vote

. . . all by Aug 31, 2022.

*Sounds to me like the Senate Rules Committee is going to cut a corner.


 

SB.717 Will Be Heard by One or more Sentate Committees TBD . . .

What We Can Do Together to Stop the Wireless Industry’s State Legislative Agenda

 

 

SB.717 is just another “SB.649/SB.556” wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

Sen. Dodd’s SB.717 — the gut-and-amend Telecom bill — falsely assumes that wireline broadband and wireless broadband are “functionally equivalent services.” They are not. There is no federal preemption of local control for wireless broadband (information service); any federal preemption is only for wireless phone calls (telecommunications service) — and only if there is substantial written evidence that proves that a significant gap in carrier-specific wireless telecommunications service exists.

There are no significant barriers to constructing fiber optics to all premises (FTAP), so there is no need for SB.717, which is just another step towards eliminating municipalities’ local control over the placement, construction and modification of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — a move which would violate the legislative intent of the 1996-Telecommuncications Act, just like Sen. Dodd’s previously failed telecom bills attempted to do — SB.649 was vetoed in 2017 and SB.556 was vetoed in 2021.

1. Please read the text of SB.717 — all 530 words of it, below. More on the bill here. SB.717 reflects the new CTIA/Wireless Industry marketing/propaganda messaging that is fully debunked here.

SB.717 Proposes to add the following 530 words to CA Govt Code:

SEC. 3. Section 65040.13 is added to the Government Code, to read:

§ 65040.13.

(a) On or before January 1, 2024, the office, with input from relevant state agencies and relevant stakeholders, shall conduct, complete, and submit a report to the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications and the Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance that reviews and identifies the following:

  • (1) Barriers to, and opportunities for, the investment in and efficient building of broadband access points on government-owned structures and property, private and public lands and buildings, and public rights of way.
  • (2) Barriers to, and opportunities for, access to mobile and fixed broadband internet service infrastructure by low-income tribal, urban, and rural customers, and to underserved communities.

(b) The review shall provide recommendations on how to accelerate deployment of broadband access points to serve tribes, low-income customers, and disadvantaged or underserved communities.

(c) At a minimum, the review shall consider whether, and if so, the extent to which the following factors serve as barriers to investment or deployment of broadband access points and shall make recommendations on how to overcome these barriers:

  • (1) The processes for and cost of obtaining electric service to broadband access points.
  • (2) Delays, and reasons thereof, in obtaining state, county, or local permits to deploy broadband access points.
  • (3) Regulatory and legal obstacles in deploying fiber to transport broadband traffic from broadband access points.
  • (4) The lack of legal limitations on the price for leasing private or public property to deploy broadband access points on public and private property and buildings.
  • (5) The cost of leasing access to middle-mile broadband networks.
  • (6) California Coastal Commission permitting policies.
  • (7) Local coastal plans that use California Coastal Commission policies resulting in delay or block of investment in and deployment of broadband access points.
  • (8) The permitting policies and processes to deploy on property governed by port authorities.
  • (9) Air quality management regulations that result in duplication or delay or otherwise block investment in, and deployment of, broadband access points.
  • (10) Noise abatement regulations that result in delay or block investment in, and deployment of, broadband access points.

(d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

  • (1) “Broadband access points” means both wireless broadband access points and wireline broadband access points.
  • (2) “Relevant stakeholders” means representatives of each of the following: law enforcement agencies, public safety community, public first responder personnel and providers, wireless service and infrastructure providers and their trade associations, cable communications providers and their trade association, wireline communications providers and their trade association, tribes, municipal government or city associations, county governments or county associations, investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, organized labor, California manufacturing associations, and technology associations.
  • (3) “Relevant state agencies” means the Department of Transportation, the Public Utilities Commission, the Department of Technology, the Department of Fire and Forestry, Office of Emergency Services, and the California Coastal Commission.
  • (4) “Wireless broadband access points” means poles, buildings, property, towers, and base stations upon which wireless transmission and transport facilities are installed.
  • (5) “Wireline broadband access points” includes coax and fiber transport facilities.

2. Arrange a Zoom meeting with your state Senator and Assembly Member.

In June, 2020, please set up Zoom meetings. The office numbers of all CA Senators and Assembly members are at the CA Legislators’ page → here.

In your call, tell them that in addition to you, the constituent, you will have other Telecom experts on the Zoom call: members of Wire California’s experienced lobbying team can join your call, if you wish. Just fill out the details of your meeting by completing the contact formhere — with your home zip code, the names of expected attendees, the date/time of the meeting and the expected length of meeting (usually between 30-60 minutes). The optimum number of participants from your side is 2–3 people. More than that is overkill.

Important: Fill out the form once for each meeting that you set up.

Our team has years of experience in conducting successful and productive meetings. Please let us know if we join a meeting on your behalf. Just fill out this form.

3. Send an Op-Ed or Letter to your local paper.

Thoughtful and informative letters from local residents are usually welcomed by local papers. We can provide you with writing samples containing the most important points, and you can customize them for your local area and add your personal story. We can also provide the name and email of the editor of your local paper. Please fill out this form, if you desire some assistance.

Sample Op-Ed here:

On May 17, Senator Dodd gutted a 2021 Medi-Cal bill, SB 717, and amended it to become a Telecom-friendly bill. Sen. Dodd, is doing the same thing he did last year with SB 556 — promote a bill that gives special favors to the wireless industry by sacrificing localities’ rights. There are three principle issues with SB 717.

  1. It is a corrupt, unethical practice to gut and amend bills like this in the CA legislature. Dodd’s was a last-minute maneuver to short-circuit full debate, public comment and deliberation. His action undermines our democracy and is an all-too-common practice in the CA legislature.
  2. SB 717 is just another step towards eliminating municipalities’ local control over the placement, construction and modification of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) — a move which would violate the legislative intent of the Telecommuncations Act of 1996 (1996-TCA). Sen. Dodd’s previously failed telecom bills attempted to very similar things. Fortunately, SB 649 was vetoed in 2017 by Gov. Broan and SB 556 was vetoed in 2021 by Gov Newsom.
  3. SB 717 falsely claims that wireless and wired infrastructure are functionally equivalent services, which is simply wrong and inconsistent with the legislative intent of the 1996-TCA.

Wired broadband is far superior to wireless broadband. Broadband by fiber optic or coaxial wires is much faster, safer, more secure and lower cost, which makes Wired broadband the most effective solution for bridging the Digital Divide.

SB 717 is set to be heard by the CA Assembly Committee for Natural Resources on June 27. Please make the effort to let the committee members know that Californians do not support Sen. Dodd’s efforts to

  • gut and amend this bill
  • undermine local control over wireless infrastructure
  • promote wireless broadband over wired broadband infrastructure.

SB.717 Update, last revised June 21 @ 12:15 pm

Please view the following video about the June 15, 2022 CA Assembly Communications and Conveyance Hearing re:
Senate Bill No. 517

June 8, 2022 — Discussion of SB.717

June 15, 2022 — CA Assembly Committee Hearing: SB.717 at Comms. & Conveyance

Here is SB.717 status from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB717

  • 05/17/22 – From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Comm. on HEALTH.
  • 05/23/22 – Re-referred to Comms. on C. & C. and NAT. RES. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
  • 06/15/22 – From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 15).

The first thing Sen. Dodd said in his presentation was a reference to amendments — amendments that were not shared with the public prior to the hearing or the committee vote. Nevertheless, the bill was voted through unanimously . . . business as usual. We also see no June 15, 2022 edit to the bill here –> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB717

Inexplicaly, in the June 15 hearing, there was not a single mention of the real cause of the Digital Divide, which is explained here –> https://wireamerica.org/debunked/free-state-foundation/ . . . and also here . . .

The Natural Resources Committee to Hear SB.717 on Mon, June 27, 2022 at 2:30 p.m

. . . still verifying this date/time

The Natural Resources Committee
Legislative Office Building
1020 N Street, Room 164
916-319-2092
LUZ RIVAS, Chair

Asm. Natural Resources Committee Staff

  1. Lawrence Lingbloom lawrence.lingbloom@asm.ca.gov, Chief Consultant
  2. Elizabeth MacMillan elizabeth.macmillan@asm.ca.gov, Principal Consultant
  3. Paige Brokaw paige.brokaw@asm.ca.gov, Senior Consultant
  4. Martha Gutierrez martha.butierrez@asm.ca.gov, Committee Secretary

Natural Resources Committee Members

  1. Luz M. Rivas (Chair) , Dem-39
    • Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6140
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0039;
    • Legislative Director: Judy Yee <judy.yee@asm.ca.gov>; sent email 6/16
    • 916-319-2039 — LM 6/16 @ 8:35 am
    • 818-504-3911 — TT 6/16 @ 12:50 pm
  2. Heath Flora (Vice Chair), Rep-12
  3. Laura Friedmanm, Dem-43
    • Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 6310
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0043
    • Legislative Director: Jim Metropolis <jim.metropolis@asm.ca.gov>; sent email 6/16
    • 916-319-2043 — LM 6/16 @ 8:35 am
    • 818-558-3043- TT 6/16 @ 1:15 pm
  4. Cristina Garcia, Dem – 58
    • Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8140
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0058;
    • Legislative Director: Tiffany Ryan <tiffany.ryan@asm.ca.gov>; sent email 6/16
    • 916-319-2058 — LM 6/16 @ 8:40 am
    • 562-861-5803 — TT 6/16 @ 1:25 pm
  5. Devon J. Mathis , Rep – 26
    • Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5530
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0026
    • Legislative Director: Aaron Rice <aaron.rice@asm.ca.gov>; sent email 6/16
    • 916-319-2026 — LM 6/16 @ 8:40 am
    • 559-636-3440 — TT 6/16 @ 1:30 pm
  6. Kevin McCarty, Dem – 07
    • Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 4250
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0007;
    • Legislative Director: Ismael Contreras <ismael.contreras@asm.ca.gov>
    • Scheduler: Jessica Lawrence <jessica.lawrence@asm.ca.gov>
    • 916-319-2007 — LM 6/16 @ 8:40 am
    • 916-324-4676 — TT 6/16 @  1:40 pm
  7. Al Muratsuchi, Dem – 66
    • Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5610
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0066
    • Legislative Director: Gabriela Castilo  <gabriela.castilo@asm.ca.gov>
    • 916-319-2066 — LM 6/16 @ 8:45 am
    • 310-375-0691 — TT 6/16 @  1:45 pm
  8. Kelly Seyartom, Rep – 67
  9. Mark Stone, Dem – 29
    • Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 5740
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0029
    • 916-319-2029 — LM 6/16 @ 8:45 am
    • 831-425-1503 (Google Voice) — LM 6/16 @ 1:50 pm
    • 831-649-2832 (Google Voice) — LM 6/16 @ 1:50 pm
  10. Jim Wood, Dem – 02
    • Capitol Office, 1020 N Street, Room 390
    • P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0002;
    • Legislative Director: Annabelle Hopkins <annabelle.hopkins@asm.ca.gov>
    • Legislative Assistant: Will Tesconi <will.tesconi@asm.ca.gov>
    • 916-319-2002 — LM 6/16 @ 8:45 am; TT 6/16 @ 1:55 pm

Next Natural Resources Committee Hearings

  • Mon, June 20, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. – State Capitol, Room 447 (SB.717 is not on this agenda)
  • Mon, June 27, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. – State Capitol, Room 447 (SB.717 will likely be on this agenda)

June 20, 2022 Agenda: BILLS TO BE HEARD IN FILE ORDER # Measure — Author |Summary

  1. SB.1078 — Allen | Sea Level Rise Revolving Loan Pilot Program.
  2. SB.1203 — Becker | Net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases: state agency operations.
  3. SB.1101 — Caballero | Carbon sequestration: pore space ownership and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Program.
  4. SB.1123 — Caballero | Resilience Navigators Program: climate change resilience financial assistance programs.
  5. SB.1410 — Caballero | California Environmental Quality Act: transportation impacts.
  6. SB.1297 — Cortese | Low-embodied carbon building materials: carbon sequestration.
  7. SB.926 — Dodd | Prescribed Fire Liability Pilot Program: Prescribed Fire Claims Fund. (Urgency)
  8. SB.1046 — Eggman | Solid waste: precheckout bags.
  9. SB.1065 — Eggman | California Abandoned and Derelict Commercial Vessel Program.
  10. SB.1347 — Hueso | California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: renewable hydrogen production study.
  11. SB.1187 — Kamlager | Fabric recycling: pilot project.
  12. SB.1391 — Kamlager | greenhouse gases: market-based compliance mechanisms: linkages to the state.
  13. SB.1145 — Laird | California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: greenhouse gas emissions: dashboard.
  14. SB.1295 — Limón | Oil and gas: hazardous or deserted wells and facilities: labor standards.
  15. SB.1314 — Limón | Oil and gas: Class II injection wells: enhanced oil recovery.
  16. SB.978 — McGuire | Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery: wildfire debris cleanup and removal: contracts.
  17. SB.1136 — Portantino | California Environmental Quality Act: expedited environmental review: climate change regulations.
  18. SB.905 — Skinner | Decarbonized Cement and Geologic Carbon Sequestration Demonstration Act.
  19. SB.1399 — Wieckowski | Carbon Capture Technology Demonstration Project Grant Program.



Date of Hearing: June 15, 2022

[CRITIQUE OF] ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE [CONSULTANTS’ BILL ANALYSIS]

Sharon Quirk-Silva, Chair
SB 717 (Dodd) – As Amended May 17, 2022
SB.717 Bill Analysis Prepared by: Emilio Perez / Assembly
Communications and Conveyance Committee Consultant
916-319-2637(Original pdf here)

Please note, on this web page,

  • Read, below, emphases, more emphases, and [notations] from Wire California.
  • Wire California comments are in green boxes, like this one.

SENATE VOTE: 32-0

Wire California: The Senate vote, reported above, was for the original SB.717 bill text bill regarding Medical Health Insurance. On May 17, 2022, Sen. Dodd gutted fully SB.717 and replaced all the text with a whole new Telecom-friendly bill — with ideas and phrases very similar in purpose to previously-vetoed Telecom bills SB.649 from 2017 and SB.556 from 2021, but updated with the current CTIA propaganda position for the Wireless Industry, fully debunked here.

Why not clarify that the Senate vote was actually about a completely different topic? Not explaining the irrelevance of the Senate vote is misleading. Why was there no mention at all in this bill analysis about Sen. Dodd’s gut and remand move?

SUBJECT: Office of Planning and Research: broadband communications: report

SUMMARY: This bill would direct the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), on or before January 1, 2024, to submit a report to the legislature that reviews and identifies barriers to and opportunities for the expansion of broadband access points and broadband service in various locations and to various communities.

Specifically, this bill:

  1. Requires the OPR to conduct and complete the report with input from relevant state agencies and relevant stakeholders, as defined.
  2. Requires the report to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications and the Assembly Committee on Communications & Conveyance.
  3. Requires that the report shall review and identify barriers to, opportunities for, the investment in, and efficient building of broadband access points on
    • a. government-owned structures and property,
    • b. private and public lands and buildings, and
    • c. public rights of way.
  4. Requires that the report shall review and identify barriers to, and opportunities for, access to mobile and fixed broadband internet service infrastructure by low-income tribal, urban, and rural customers, and to underserved communities.
  5. Requires the review to consider the extent to which ten specified factors, at a minimum, serve as barriers to investment or deployment of broadband access points including [but only seven (7) are listed below]:
    • a. The process and cost of obtaining electric service to broadband access points.
    • b. Delays, and reasons thereof, in obtaining state, county, or local permits to deploy broadband accesss points.
    • c. Regulatory and legal obstacles in deploying fiber to transport broadband traffic from broadband access points.
    • d. The cost of leasing access to middle-mile broadband networks.
    • e. California Coastal Commission permitting policies, and delays caused by local coastal plans.
    • f. Air quality management regulations.
    • g. Noise abatement regulations.
  6. Requires the report to include recommendations on how to overcome identified barriers.
  7. Defines “relevant stakeholders” to mean representatives of each of the following:
    • law enforcement agencies,
    • public safety community,
    • public first responder personnel and providers,
    • wireless service and infrastructure providers and their trade associations,
    • cable communications providers and their trade association,
    • wireline communications providers and their trade association,
    • tribes,
    • municipal government or city associations,
    • county governments or county associations,
    • investor-owned utilities,
    • publicly owned utilities,
    • organized labor,
    • California manufacturing associations, and
    • technology associations.
  8. Defines “relevant state agencies” to mean
    • the Department of Transportation,
    • the Public Utilities Commission,
    • the Department of Technology,
    • the Department of Fire and Forestry,
    • the Office of Emergency Services, and
    • the California Coastal Commission.

More to come . . .