SENATE TO A COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND ESTABLISH A
QUORUM MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. JACKSON HERE
JACKSON HERE MORLOCK. MORE LIKE
HERE ANDERSON.
ANDERSON HERE HERTZBERG MORNING.
HERE MORNING HERE STERN.
STERN HEREBY CASTING HERE BY
CASKEY HERE ALREADY A QUORUM IS
PRESENT WERE GOING TO TURN TO
TODAY'S AGENDA WE HAVE ONE
MATTER ON SP FOUR SIXTY. AND.
WILL PROCEED AS WE DO NORMALLY
IN THIS COMMITTEE WHERE WE WILL
HAVE TWO MAIN WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH IN SUPPORT.
AND THEN ANY ADDITIONAL PEOPLE
WHO WISH TO A STEP FORWARD TO
THE MICROPHONE TO GIVE THEIR
NAME AND AFFILIATION. AND THEN
SIMILARLY TO MAINE WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH IN OPPOSITION AND
THEN ALL ADDITIONAL OPPONENTS NO
WILL AT THAT TIME BE ALLOWED TO.
OF STEP FORWARD AND GIVE THEIR
NAME AND AFFILIATION ONLY AND
THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP.
TO.
THE DIE IS FOR QUESTIONS SO.
WITH THAT SP FOR SIXTY SENATOR
DE LEóN.
GOOD MORNING.
MADAM CHAIR THANK YOU MUCH GOOD
MORNING I DO APOLOGIZE TO YOU AS
WELL AS OUR LUSTROUS VICE CHAIR.
OF MISTER MOORE LOCK OF FOR MY
TARDINESS TODAY HAD. A. MEDIA.
THE ROLE RESPONSIBILITY IS IS
BEING THE LEADER OF THE SENATE
IS IF THERE'S NEVER A DULL
MOMENT I CAN TELL YOU THAT
SUSPICION TODAY'S DAY MADE SO I
I THINK YOU'RE MUCH FOR YOUR
INDULGENCE MADAM CHAIR AS WELL
AS COLLEAGUES.
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
US SENATE BILL.
SP FOUR SIXTY.
MADAM CHAIR.
MISTER VICE CHAIR THREE SHORT
DECADES AGO THE WORLD WITH JUST
DISCOVERING THE INTERNET'S.
WE HAD NO IDEA JUST HOW RAPIDLY
AND COMPLETELY IT WOULD CHANGE
OUR LIVES FROM THE WAY WE
COMMUNICATES TO HOW WE DO
BUSINESS HOW WE GET AROUND.
EVEN HOW WE BY OUR OWN
GROCERIES
TODAY THE INTERNET IS CRITICAL
TO FREE EXPRESSION FREE SPEECH
AS WELL AS DEMOCRACY. AND TENS
OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS OF
EVERY INCOME LEVEL AND POLITICAL
PERSUASION DEPEND ON A FREE AND
OPEN INTERNET FOR THEIR
LIVELIHOODS. THAT'S WHY THE
FCC'S DECISION TO REPEAL NET
NEUTRALITY IS SO DANGEROUS. AND
THAT'S WHY THIS BILL IS SO
IMPORTANT.
NOT ONLY DOES THE RECENT REPEAL
OF NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS
DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE WILL OF
THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS.
IT ALSO GIVES INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS THE POWER TO SABOTAGE
TO THE COMPETITION BY THROTTLING
THE INTERNET SPEEDS FOR
COMPETING CONTENT.
OR TO LET COMPANIES PAY FOR
PRIORITY TO GAIN AN UNFAIR
ADVANTAGE IN THE RACE FOR TIME
OR ATTENTION AS WELL AS OUR
BUSINESS. WITHOUT STRONG NET
NEUTRALITY RULES THERE'S NOTHING
TO STOP ANY COMPANY THAT ALREADY
MONOPOLIZE THE INTERNET FROM
BLOCKING WEBSITES OR INFORMATION
ALL TOGETHER.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THE PROFITS OR
TO POLITICAL INTERESTS OF ANYONE
TO AWAIT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET. TO
PORT MADAM CHAIR AS WELL AS MR
VICE SURE TO OUR ECONOMY AS WELL
AS OUR WAY LIFE.
SENATE BILL FOUR SIXTY WILL
PREVENT ANY ENTITY FROM USING
DECEPTIVE DISCRIMINATORY OR ANTI
COMPETITIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.
IT PRESERVES THE HEART OF THE
FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY RULES AND
PROHIBITS ISPS FROM BLOCKING
FRAWLEY. AND UP FOR PAID PRIOR
TOWARDS ASIAN. INTO GIVES
CONSUMERS GREATER TRANSPARENCY
ABOUT THE SERVICES WE ALL DEPEND
ON AND EVERYDAY LIFE.
THIS BILL I WANNASIT WITH A
VERY ROBUST.
DISCUSSION.
IN THE SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE
HAVE A FEW WEEKS AGO.
WE HEARD FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS
ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO VEHEMENTLY
OPPOSES A WELL LEGISLATION.
WE HAVE SOME OF CSU STRICKEN BY
ANY REFERENCE MADAM.
CHAIR LAW TO THE.
CPUC THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION A
REGULATION OF THE INTERNET OF
THAT WAS A VERY KEY CONCERN THAT
WAS RAISED BY THE OPPONENTS AND
WE HAVE ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.
INSTILL INSTEAD THE BILL NOW
SIMPLY MAKES NET NEUTRALITY
VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO
ENFORCEMENT
ON THE CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES
AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
LOTS.
IT ALSO PROHIBITS STATE AGENCIES
FROM COULD CONTRACTING WITH AYE
SPEEDS ON THE SIZE PLEASE SIR
CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY PERJURY.
THAT THEIR ABIDING BY THE NET
NEUTRALITY LAWS NOW WE ALL KNOW
THE NET TO TRIAL IS GOOD FOR
BUSINESS AND PROTECTS IT LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD. FOR ALL COMPANIES
AND ARE THRIVING INTERNET
ECONOMY. NO IT IS NOT JUST A THE
RED STATES OR BLUE STATE IDEA.
STATES LIKE MONTANA
HAVE ALREADY ACTED PROHIBITS
STATE AGENCIES FROM DOING
BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES THAT
DON'T ABIDE BY NET NEUTRALITY.
JUST AS THIS BILL DOES A U. S.
SENATE BILL ON THIS ISSUE HAS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AS WELL WITH
FIFTY CO SPONSORS. IT IS ALSO
FUNDAMENTALLY AN ISSUE OF SPEECH
FREE SPEECH AND FREE EXPRESSION.
BUT WHICH WHO HAS ACCESS TO
WHICH IDEAS WHO DECIDES
WHAT INFORMATION SEE AND HOW
FASTER IN AT WORK.
MADAM CHAIR AS WELL VICE CHAIR
IDEA RESPECTFULLY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITH
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS
MEASURE. I DO BELIEVE IN
CONCLUSION AT SP FOUR SIXTY SETS
VERY CLEAR REASONABLE STANDARDS.
FOUR EYES PEAS AND OFFER
NECESSARY PROTECTIONS BOTH
ONLINE BUSINESSES AS WELL AS
CONSUMERS.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I'VE
TALKED.
THANK YOU SENATOR DEALING ON ANY
WITNESSES SO WHO WOULD LIKE TO
STEP FORWARD TO A.
WE WILL ALLOW TO WITNESSES TWO
MINUTES EACH YEAR FOR ANYONE IS
INTERESTED.
MORNING READING CHAIR MEMBERS
AGNOSTIC HERNANDEZ SUMS CAN DO
REAL QUICK.
.
TURN UP.
AT NOT YOUR HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF
OF THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
RETURN. ON BEHALF OF THE
GREEN-LINING INSTITUTE ALSO ON
BEHALF
OF THE COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF
AMERICA DISTRICT NINE ARE ALL IN
SUPPORT THE BILL I THINK I JUST
VERY BRIEFLY I THINK THE.
SUBSTANCE OF THE NET NEUTRALITY
WAS DISCUSSED FOR A ROBUST
DISCUSSION IN THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEE THINK AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE MADE FOR THIS COMMITTEE AS
FAR AS THE REMEDIES ARE VERY
STRONG. AND I THINK THE AUTHOR
FIRST LISTENING TO SOME OF THE
CONCERNS FROM SOME THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WE LOOK FOR ALL OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS I MENTIONED BEFORE
TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH. THE
AUTHOR ON THE BILL GOING FORWARD
AND HOPE YOU SPORTS BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES%
XIN SUPPORT WHO WISH TO STEP
FORWARD.
ALRIGHT OF TIME FOR WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO WITNESSES PLEASE
TWO MINUTES EACH.
GOOD MORNING THAT YOUR MEMBERS
STEVE CARLSON FOR CTIA HOW WHERE
THEY.
TREATISE
AND FOR THE WIRELESS AND.
UP YOU'RE GONNA HEAR THIS AGAIN
BUT THE CTI A IN ITS MEMBERS.
HAVE COMMITTED AND DO NOT BLOCK
WEBSITES DO NOT CENSORONLINE
CONTENT TO DO NOT THROTTLE
DISCRIMINATE OR DEGRADE NETWORK
PERFORMANCE.
AND BY THE WAY WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THAT. AB THE BILL TALKS
ABOUT BLOCKING OF OF LEGAL
CONTENT AND ONE MUST RAISE A
QUESTION AS TO WHAT ROLE THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE A
DETERMINING WHAT LEGAL CONTENT
ISN'T ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
WE SUPPORT A FREE AND OPEN
INTERNET UNFORTUNATELY AS BEFORE
SIXTY.
ACCOMPLISHES NEITHER.
THERE'S A LOT OF SKY IS FALLING.
COMENTS.
OF SURROUNDING THIS OF WILL BE
BELIEVE THIS GUY'S VERY BLUE
WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNET.
THE INTERNET HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO
PROSPER AND GET TO WHERE IT IS
IN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN A HUGE
BENEFICIARY OF THAT. BECAUSE OF
THE LIGHT REGULATORY TOUCH THAT
HAS GOTTEN TO WHERE WE ARE.
WE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE TWENTY
FIFTEEN RULES APPLIED BY THE.
IF THE FCC AT THAT POINT UNDER
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
WE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A
NECESSITY FOR THAT NOR
COMPELLING SHOWING OF A PROBLEM
NOR TO BELIEVED. TO WE BELIEVE
THERE IS ONE RIGHT NOW. AND
TWENTY SEVENTEEN THE FCC
SWITCHED AGAIN CITING EVIDENCE
OF A DECLINE IN BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE.
OF ALMOST SIX BILLION DOLLARS A
YEAR BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY
CREATED BY THOSE RULES.
POURTANT SING FOR THIS COMMITTEE
TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT IN BOTH
INSTANCES WHETHER YOU AGREED
WITH THE TWENTY FIFTEEN ORDER OR
THE TWENTY SEVENTEEN ORDER.
THE FCC MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR
THAT STATE AND LOCAL ACTION WAS
PREEMPTED BECAUSE OF THE NEED
FOR A NATIONAL REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK.
ON THE INTERNET AND I THINK
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW
FOR THIS COMMITTEE.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WE
BELIEVE IS THAT THE UNCERTAINTY
CREATED BY THESE RULES AS WELL
AS THAT THE PREVIOUS RULES. WILL
HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE
INVESTMENT THAT WE ALL NEED TO
BUILD FIVE G. SMART CITIES.
BECAUSE OF THE UP BECAUSE OF
THE INTERNET ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
IN A COMPETITIVE MARKET LIKE
MOBILE WIRELESS BROADBAND
PROVIDERS WILL NEVER HAVE AN
INCENTIVE TO BLOCK ACCESS TO
INTERNET SERVICES BECAUSE IF
THEY DID. COMPANIES WOULD JUST
SWITCH PROVIDERS THE NEGATIVE
FISCAL IMPACT OF S. B. FOR SIXTY
COULD BE MASSIVE.
NO ONE ON THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD
TRUST THAT ANY STATE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND WE'VE GIVEN
AUTHORITY NOW TO FIFTY EIGHT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN CALIFORNIA.
TO ENFORCE THOSE.
COULD REGULATE THE INTERNET OR
KEEP UP WITH THE FURY OF
INNOVATION A CURRENTLY PROVIDES
FOR HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR
THESE REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE US BEFORE SIXTY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH NEXT WITNESS
PLEASE LEARNING. AYE MADAM
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS CAROLINE
MCINTYRE BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CABLE AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
WHILE THE MEMBERS THE C. C. T. A
ARE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING AN
OPEN MANNER NAT WHEN I SUPPOSE
THIS LEGISLATION. AND THE
RESULTING STATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY IT GRANTS.
CODIFYING THE RECENTLY REPEALED
FEDERAL REGULATORY RULES IN
CALIFORNIA STATUTE WITH CREED
BROAD CONFUSING AND INCONSISTENT
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
DEFINITIONS AND THE ACTIONS. TO
BE APPLIED TO BROADBAND INTERNET
SERVICE THE INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE.
S. B. SIX FOUR FOUR SIXTY IS
OVERLY SIMPLISTIC ATTEMPT TO
CODIFY THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF
NET NEUTRALITY. WITHOUT THE
BENEFITS OF THE DEFINITIONS IN
THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE
FCC.
FOR EXAMPLE. ALTHOUGH THE FCC
QUESTIONS TH USE OF PAID
PRIORITIZATION THEY DO NOT
BANNED THE PRACTICE AS BEFORE
SIXTY DOES.
THE F. C. C. PROVIDES AN I. S.
PIECE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO MANAGE
ITS NETWORK AND AUTHORIZES PAID
PER YOUR DEBATE PRIORITIZATION
THAT BENEFITS THE PUBLIC
INTERESTS AS BEFORE SIXTY DOES
NOT.
S. BEFORE SIXTY CALLS INTO
QUESTION THE PROVISION OF
PRIORITY AD NETWORKS
FOR EXAMPLE I UNDER AS BEFORE
SIXTY WOULD A CALIFORNIA
INTERNET SERVICES PROVIDER BE
AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE A PRIORITY
NETWORK SERVICE. TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OR
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
KNOWN AS THE CALIFORNIA
EDUCATION NETWORK INITIATIVES IN
CALIFORNIA OR SCENIC.
OR A DEDICATED NETWORK CAPACITY
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
SIMILAR DIFFER* THE
NATIONWIDE PUBLIC SAFETY
BROADBAND NETWORK.
THE FCC REGULATIONS CLEARLY
INCLUDED FEDERAL PREEMPTION
LANGUAGE TO PROHIBIT STATES FROM
REGULATING THE INTERNET
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL
REGULATORY OBJECTIVES.
SIMPLY PLACING NET NEUTRALITY
TERMS IN STATUTE ALLOWING THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FIFTY EIGHT
DIFFERENT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OR
MULTIPLE COUNTY COURTS. TO APPLY
THEIR DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY
MEAN AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE
APPLIED TO BROADBAND INTERNET
ACCESS SERVICE. WITH SUBJECT
EACH ISP TO COMPLYING WITH THE
PATCHWORK OF POTENTIALLY
CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS ACROSS
ALL THE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS
INWHICH THEY OPERATE. BOTH
WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA.
THE FCC REGULATIONS INTENDED TO
PREVENT SUBJECTIVITY.
S. B. FOR SIXTY ALSO ATTEMPTS TO
USE THE STATE PROCUREMENT
PROCESS TO REQUIRE ISPS TO
CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY.
THAT THEY WILL NOT ENGAGE IN
CERTAIN NETWORK ACTIVITY. THIS
PROVISION IS ALSO PREEMPTED BY
FEDERAL LAW
SIMPSON PUTTING CORD HAS HELD
THAT STATES MAY NOT USE THEIR
SPENDING POWER TO REGULATE
INDIRECTLY. WHAT'S A CANNOT
PERMISSIBLE A REGULATE DIRECTLY.
THE CABLE INDUSTRY UNEQUIVOCALLY
SUPPORTS AN OPEN INTERNET
HOWEVER SB FOUR SIXTY IS
UNNECESSARY STATE LEVEL
POLICIES.
REGULATING THE INTERNET ARE
PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL REGULATIONS
ARE INAPPROPRIATE FOR AN
INHERENTLY INTER STATE SERVICE.
AND DIFFRACTED BUT LIKELY RESULT
IN COSTLY LITIGATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH LAST OPPOSE
THANK YOU I DON'T THINK THERE'S
ANY DOUBT THAT THIS IS GOING TO
BE LITIGATED IT'S PROBABLY GOING
TO BE EXPENSIVE KEEP A LOT OF
LAWYERS BUSY AND HAPPY NO MATTER
WHAT WE DO ON THIS SO. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH ANY OTHER WITNESSES
WHO'D LIKE TO STAND UP GIVE
THEIR NAME AND AFFILIATION. IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE.
JACKIE CAN YOU REPRESENTING
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE BILL IF
I COULD JUST POINT OVER THANK
YOU WE'VE WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE
TESTIMONY IF I COULD LET YOU DO
IT THERE ABOUT TWENTY PEOPLE WHO
WILL ADD ON SO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR OP BILLS
LEVINE REPRESENTING A TNT WE
OPPOSE THE BILL THANK YOU SIR.
I'M SURE MEMBERS JOHN NORWOOD ON
BEHALF OF COMCAST ROLLS ON
OPPOSITION THANK YOU THANK YOU.
ENTER CHRIS FOR KAYLEIGH ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPUTING
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
COMPTIA IN OPPOSITION THANK YOU
VERY MUCH ENTER FREQUENTLY ON
BEHALF OF CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU SIR.
GOOD MORNING BRITAIN SITS THERE
WITH CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA ALSO OPPOSITION THANK
YOU.
PAM LIMITS ON BEHALF OF
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS ALSO
IN OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
ATTY MARSILLI ON BEHALF OF
VERIZON IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU.
THE LONG DEPENDS ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION.
BEKOMMEN.
MORNING KURT KIMMEL SHOW ON
BEHALF OF SPRINT ALSO IN
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL. THANK
YOU.
MORNING KEVIN KELLY ON BEHALF
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
MORNING CULTURAL COOK FOR THE
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION THANK YOU.
MARGARET GLASSY ABOUT FIFTY
MOBILE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN OPPOSITION.
ALRIGHTY WELL NOW IS THE TIME
FOR DISCUSSION AND I JUST LET ME
JUST SHARE A FEW THOUGHTS WITH
YOU AND THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP TO
THE FLOOR I SUSPECT SENATOR
STERN WILL HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
AS OUR. MILLENNIAL THOSE GROWN
UP WITH THE INTERNET.
NO PRESSURE HERE THOUGH.
RIGHT FOR GUESTS.
SO.
I THINK EVERYONE AS I
UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY AGREES
THAT.
NET NEUTRALITY.
THE IS VITAL TO THE OPEN NATURE
OF THE INTERNET AND TO DRIVING
INNOVATION I THINK I HEARD EVEN
THE OPPOSITION SAYING THAT THEY
SUPPORT. OF NET NEUTRALITY THEY
JUST DON'T WANT TO BE REGULATED
IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM IN
THAT.
REGARD.
BUT WE KNOW THE NET NEUTRALITY
FUNCTIONS AS THE INTERNET'S
FIRST AMENDMENT RELEASED THE WAY
I SEE IT IN THAT IT PREVENTS
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
OR ISPS TIME.
LEARNING THE LINGO HERE UP FROM
DETERMINING WHAT CONTENT USERS
SEE AND AT WHAT SPEED.
AND I THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS DEBATE OVER NET NEUTRALITY
CANNOT BE. UNDERSCORED ENOUGH
BECAUSE AS WELL AS.
INDICATED IN.
SENATOR DALY OWNS OPENING
REMARKS I SEE THIS AND I THINK
MANY PEOPLE DO ASSISTANCE
FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT DEMOCRACY.
THESE. THE INTERNET IS UP WHAT I
LOOK AT IS SORT OF THE TWENTY
FIRST CENTURY VERSION OF PUBLIC
LIBRARIES.
IT'S AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE
RICH OR POOR WHETHER THEY ARE.
ABLE TO.
.
AFFORD THE BEST.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION.
THEY CAN GO AND USE THE INTERNET
TO LEARN.
TO BE INFORMED TO DEBATE.
AND THAT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
TO A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.
SO.
IN THIS DIGITAL AGE OPEN AND
NON DISCRIMINATORY ACCESS IS
CRUCIAL.
TO THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO STAY
INFORMED AND TO BE ABLE TO
COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER.
AND.
THE FCC IS PREVIOUSLY FELT
THESE PROTECTIONS WERE
NECESSARY.
IT TO PROTECT AGAINST THE
THREATS POSED BY UNCHECKED DYESS
PEACE NOW UP UNTIL NOW IF I
UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY GIVEN THE
LAW THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS AND THE
DIRECTIONS FROM THE FCC. WE HAVE
THAT WE HAVE HAD AN OPEN
INTERNET IT HAS BEEN
SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY THE FCC
PERHAPS WITH THE GENTLE OR GLOVE
FOR NAUGHT THAN WHAT. SOME MIGHT
IT DUH BELIEVE WE HAVE TODAY BUT
ASSURANCES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
KEEP DOING THIS BECAUSE YOU'VE
ALWAYS DONE IT.
REALLY SEEM A LITTLE HOLLOW.
YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT OR THE
COMPANIES THAT HAVE BEEN DOING
IT HAVE BEEN DOING IT BECAUSE
THEY'VE BEEN REQUIRED TO DO IT.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND THE NEW
REGULATIONS TO BASICALLY SAYS
WE'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE THAT
YOU DO THIS SO FOR ME.
THAT ARGUMENT IS SO.
IS ONE THAT.
CARRY SO WHOLE LOT OF
UNCERTAINTY WITH IT.
AND.
WHAT IS AT STAKE IS SIMPLY TOO
IMPORTANT I BELIEVE TO LEAVE IN
THE HANDS OF THE I. S. A PIECE
AND TO RELY ON THE HONOR CODE TO
ESPECIALLY WHEN?
THERE IS THE INCENTIVE AND THE
ABILITY TO IMPACT AND TO HARM
THE OPEN INTERNET SO.
THE ISSUE OF PREEMPTION.
BLOODGOOD LAWSUITS ON THIS
ISSUE AND I KNOW THE.
THE.
RATHER EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS THAT
WAS DONE HERE BY A. OF MY. STAFF
CRISTINA CHRISTIAN CHUPPAH POSH
SKI.
THE W. WAS SILENT I HOPE I GOT
THAT RIGHT.
I THINK VERY WELL LAYS OUT OF
THAT WHAT SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS
ARE AND THIS WILL BE FARMS
CERTAIN. THE SUBJECT OF
LITIGATION.
AND WE WILL BE JOINING TWENTY
YOU TWENTY FIVE OTHER STATES AND
I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TOO
THAT THIS REALLY IS NOT VIEWED
AS AN IDEOLOGICAL ISSUE WE HAVE
STATES LIKE MISSISSIPPI.
STATES LIKE IOWA STOOD A NUMBER
OF WHAT WOULD BE REFERRED TO AS
RED STATES WHO ALSO.
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR.
SYSTEM AND OUR ACCESS TO
INFORMATION IN THE TWENTY FIRST
CENTURY SO.
AGAIN I'M UNDER NO ILLUSION
THIS IS GOING TO GO.
TO.
HEARING BEFORE THE COURTS
PROBABLY END UP IN THE U. S.
SUPREME COURT BUT THE FEARS THAT
I HAVE.
.
ABOUT THE IMPACT THIS COULD HAVE
A IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY ARE
SIGNIFICANT AND AND DIE WHEN
NEW.
OF PERSONALLY.
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD THE PROBLEM THERE A
COUPLE ISSUES ARE THERE SEVERAL
ISSUES AND I THINK THE
OPPOSITION RAISE SOME GOOD
POINTS.
AND I WOULD.
WOULD BE INTERESTED IF YOU
COULD.
.
SENATOR DALY ON RESPOND TO BOTH
THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS THAT IN
THE ARE ON PAGE FIFTEEN. AND
PERHAPS ALSO SOME OF THE OTHER
CONCERNS BUT I WILL SAY THE
CONCERN ABOUT THE PATCHWORK.
AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO NOW HAVE
FIFTY EIGHT DIFFERENT COUNTIES
ABLE TO.
PURSUE CLAIMS.
REALLY COMES ABOUT BECAUSE
THERE WAS SUCH STRONG OBJECTION
TO PUTTING THAT POWER AND
INFLUENCE IN ONE AGENCY THE PVC.
SO THE AUTHOR TOOK THAT OUT AND
NOW THERE'S A CONCERN THAT WE
GOT TOO MANY COOKS.
YET TO GET WE WERE TAKING AWAY
THE ONE COOK THAT THAT WOULD BE
ABLE TO HAVE. SORT OF OVERRIDING
JURISDICTION SO MY QUESTION TO
THE OPPOSITION IS.
WHO WOULD BE BETTER? A TO DO
THIS SHOULD NOT THE P. UC AND
LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT HOW THE FED
SHOULD DO THIS BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T EVEN KEEP THE LIGHTS ON IN
IN THE COUNTRY SO. IT
CALIFORNIA'S GOING TO TAKE THE
LEAD.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN IN HOW
YOU WOULD GO ABOUT A. OF
PROVIDING THAT PROTECTION IF YOU
OF REJECT HAVING THE PVC DO IT
I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE THE
ANSWER BUT THEY ARE SINGLE UNIT
AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A
STATEWIDE EFFORT RATHER THAN
THE.
NOW CONCERN OF PATCHWORK.
EFFORT SO.
WITH THAT.
QUESTION YES THE QUESTIONS WERE
IF YOU COULD RESPOND TO THE.
SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE
RAISED.
BY THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS ON
PAGE FIFTEEN. OF THE ANALYSIS
AND THEN RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF
THOSE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE.
IN OPPOSITION DEALING WITH JUST
SOME OF THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
HERE YOU KNOW MANAGER IN AND
TAKE YOUR MUCH OF FOR YOUR
COMMENTS.
YOU ACTUALLY.
MADE MY CLOSING COMMENTS.
TODAY SO THEREFORE I WAS GONNA
SAY ARE STRICTLY JUST FAST WHEN
I VOTE.
SO YOU GO BACK TO DOING A LOT OF
THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE
TODAY BUT UNLESS I DO WANT TO
GIVE MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS I
THINK WE'RE ON THE SUMMER.
ON THE SAME PAGE.
WITH REGARDS TO.
THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS SO
YOU'RE MAKING REFERENCE TO ON
PAGE FIFTEEN THAT NUMBER ONE.
A THE THE FIRST SO SUGGESTS
AMENDMENT.
BY COMMITTEE STAFF OF BY
YOURSELF MADAM NUT SHARE IT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AGREE TO
OF QUITE EASILY. THE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT I HAVE NOT VIEWED AS
THE FOR SOME ACTION GOING TO
SUGGEST A SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT
NOW AS WE SPEAK SO. I'M GONNA
HOLD OFF ON ANY COMMENTS RIGHT
NOW I DON'T KNOW. IF A KID MAY
BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THE SECOND
MIMICS I'M JUST ACTUALLY.
LITERALLY.
VIEWING NO FAULT OF YOUR OWN
ARE ARE ARE PART OF THE STAFF
BUT RATHER.
MY.
INABILITY TO REVIEW THE THE
SECOND AMENDMENT.
SUGGEST WHICH IS TECHNICAL IN
NATURE A KID UNION.
MADAM CHAIR KIBLER PER WITH
DIFFERENT TERMS OFFICE WITH
RESPECT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT
WE DISCUSSED WITH YOUR COMMITTEE
COUNSEL. THE A DESIRE TO MAKE
THAT AMENDMENT THE ISSUE IS.
IT WAS INCLUDED IN AND FOR THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PURPOSES. THIS
RELATES TO CREATING KIND OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC INTEREST
BENEFIT EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
ESTABLISHED BY THE BILL. THAT
WORKED WHEN YOU HAD THE P. YOU
SEE YOUR SOME REGULATORY BODY
THE COULD INTERPRET THE LAW. BUT
SINCE WE'VE NOW. DEPARTED FROM
THAT FORMAT AND THE STATUE JUST
STANDS ON ITS OWN AS A DECEPTIVE
ADVERTISING AND CONSUMER LEGAL
REMEDIES STATUTE.
WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
WORK WITH YOUR STAFF TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO DO THAT IT COULD BE
THAT WE CAN GIVE THE COURT AN
ENFORCEMENT ACTION SOME
DISCRETION. IN THAT REGARD OR
THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS WE MAY
BE ABLE TO. INTERPRET WHAT THE
ISSUE WAS ON ONE OF SUBSTANCE OF
IT WAS ONE OF MAKING SURE THAT
IT WOULD WORK WITHIN. THE FOUR
CORNERS OF THE BILL AS NOW
DRAFTED.
VERY GOOD AND THEN THE.
.
THE THIRD THERE WERE THREE
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.
THAT RESPONSE THE SECOND THE
FIRST SIMPLY.
A I THINK IT'S SICK A CLEARER
ASK AS TO HOW HOW YOU GO ABOUT
A.
A DEFINING REASONABLE NETWORK
MANAGEMENT.
I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE DOES
JUST TO SET SOME PARAMETERS.
AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM.
PROVIDES FOR THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BENEFIT WOULD YOU
RESPOND TO THAT SUGGESTION THE
SUGGESTION THERE AGAIN IS A GOOD
IDEA BUT YOU KNOW YOU NEED TO.
IN THE BILL SAY WHO WOULD
INTERPRET WHAT THAT MEANS AND SO
WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF. FIND A WAY TO
APPLY THAT IF AGAIN IF IT'S
GIVING DISCRETION THE COURTS OR
IF THERE'S A DESIRE ON THE PART
OF THE COMMITTEE OR OTHERS TO
LOOK AT OTHER AGENCIES THAT
COULD DEFINE THAT WERE HAPPY TO
WORK WITH YOU.
THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HARD OPEN UP TO QUESTIONS
STARTING WITH SENATOR
WIECKOWSKI.
SENATOR MORE.
ON PAGE SEVENTEEN THE ANALYSIS
THEY TALK ABOUT THE. NOW
INFAMOUS RESTORING INTERNET
FREEDOM ORDER FROM THE FBI. A
FCC IN THEIR.
SPECIFICALLY PREEMPTING.
STATES FROM TAKING ACTION.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT LOTS OF.
.
DATA ATTORNEY GENERAL SURGE OF
NOW SUIT YOU KNOW THE SAYING
THAT THE FCC HAS BEGUN GONE
BEYOND THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY
OR THEIR. WEBSITE OR THEIR ROOF
CAPRICIOUS SIR ARBITRARY IN
THEIR THEIR RULING. BUT BUT THIS
BUT NOW WE'RE HAVING A STATE LAW
WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM
CHALLENGING THE ACTION TO DETECT
NOW WE'RE TAKING A STATE LAW.
AND MOVING INTO THIS. THE.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS.
ARENA HOW DO YOU HOW DO WE WIN
THAT.
PREEMPTION ARGUMENT.
COULD WE SEE I GET I GET THE
FIRST ONE THAT THEY'VE
OVERSTEPPED THE BOUNDARIES.
BUT YOU WOULDN'T BETTER MISTER
UP A SOMEWHAT KOWSKI A LOOMING
SAID THE FOLLOWING I I'M NOT AN
ATTORNEY YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY
WORDS JUST HER COMMITTEE BUT I
CAN SAY THIS OF IT IS ACCURATE.
OF THAT THE FCC ORDER NOT
ATTEMPT TO SEARCH NO PREEMPTION
OVER ST LOS SO THAT IS ACCURATE
I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT
SO THERE'S NO. AMBIGUITY BUT LET
ME UNDERSCORE THE FOLLOWING.
ALSO.
THERE IS NO. FEDERAL LAW.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW OR A
FINAL COURT DECISION.
THAT HAS BEEN MADE WITH IT WITH
PRISON GUARDS TO PREEMPTION. OF
A NEED A.
STATE FUTURE LAWS DEALING WITH
NET NEUTRALITY.
THE FCC DID DRAFTLANGUAGE THAT
ATTEMPTS AGAIN TO SEARCH THEIR
PREEMPTION AUTHORITY OVER STATE
LAWS. OF BUT
THERE IS NO PAY.
CONGRESSIONAL LAW.
STATUTORY A MEASURE IT HAS BEEN
PUT FORTH NOISE OR A FINAL COURT
DECISION. AS MADAM CHAIR JUST
THE MENTION A FEW MOMENTS AGO
THERE'S NO QUESTION WHATEVER THE
FINALITY IS OF THIS MEASURE. IF
IN FACT IT IS CHOPPERED INTO LAW
THIS WILL END UP IN A COURT OF
LAW THERE WILL BE LITIGATION AND
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE THE COURTS.
SO I JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR
WE DO HAVE AN FCC THAT IS
ATTEMPTED TO THE LANGUAGE THEY
HAVE DROPPED IT CONCERT
AUTHORITY BUT WE HAVE NO FINAL
COURT DECISION. NOR DO WE HAVE A
CONGRESSIONAL LAW.
A BY THE MAJORITY.
IN WASHINGTON THAT THE SEARCH
PREEMPTIVE LEGAL AUTHORITY OVER
ANY INDIVIDUAL STATE IN THE
NATION THAT ATTEMPTS TO ASSERT
THEIR AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT THE
POLICY ISSUE. OF NET NEUTRALITY
OR THE LACK THEREOF.
OKAY COME LET'S TURN TO THE
MCGILL VERSUS CITIBANK.
AYE SUPREME COURT CASE BY THAT
HAVE A CALIFORNIA AND ENOUGH
ANYBODY FROM CITIBANK WAS HERE I
SIN THAT THEY'RE BETTER LIKE I
SAID I'M NOT A LAWYER MISTER
OKAY TOOK THE QUESTION IS IS
THAT. THAT THAT CALIFORNIA'S
SUPREME COURT CASE SAYS THAT ON
THESE ARBITRAGE ALL THESE
CONTRACTORS HAVE ARBITRATION
CLAUSES AND I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK
AT THOSE CONTRACTS AND WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT SAYS IS THAT WITH.
REGARD TO INJUNCTION THEN YOU
HAVE A RIGHT TO A COURT HEARING.
IT BUT THAT'S JUST LIMITED THE
THE MERITS OF WHAT THINK THE.
OBJECTION IS STILL ARE BOUND BY
THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE NOW
NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPEAL AND
MY READING THAT CASE WRONG WHAT
WOULD ALL THESE CASES. BE WHEN
IT GOT OTHER THAN THE INJUNCTION
PIECE WITH THE ACTUAL.
.
LAW THAT WERE PASSING HERE BE
SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATORS.
JURISDICTION.
ON JUNE LAWYER.
I MEAN I'VE HAD I'VE HAD MY
DANCE WITH THE ARBITRATION BY
PEOPLE THEY KNOW ME WELL. AND.
ASKING FOR.
YOU SEE MY QUESTION.
YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION I.
IF I COULD HAVE JUST QUIT
CLARIFICATION AND CHAIR ODDNESS
ANNOUNCE YOUR HERNANDEZ AGAIN.
VENDOR STANDS IN IRAQ HOUSES
QUESTION ARE YOU ASKING IF.
ARBITRATION CLAUSE WOULD APPLY
IN THIS CONTEXT
CORRECT.
I HAVEN'T READ THE CASE FOR
LITTLE BIT I HAVE TO GO BACK AND
CHECK I THINK THAT'S. THAT'S AN
INTERESTING QUESTION.
BECAUSE I THINK MCGILL JUST
LIMIT RIGHT THE AND JUNK THE
ENGINE TO THE JUDGE OF RELIEF
BUT NOT NECESSARILY. THE REMEDY
SLASH THE FIRST FIRST QUESTION
WOULD BE CAN YOU STOP DOING THIS
AND APPLY. APPLY CALIFORNIA CAN
STOP TREATING ME THIS WAY OKAY
AND THEN ON ALL THE OTHER.
LOS AT A COULD BE APPLIED WOULD
BE.
BUT DECISION BY THE ARBITRATOR I
JUST ASKED I DON'T.
YET WE ARE. AND I CAN SPEAK THE.
FMA MADAM CHAIR.
I COULD EASILY HALF OF OUR OF
MY CLIENT TURN I DON'T.
KNOW THAT WE HAVE DONE A DEEP
DIVE ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE
WITH OUR AYE TEAM OF LAWYERS
OVER CERTAINLY.
HAPPY LOOK AT THAT I KNOW
ANOTHER CONTEXT FOR OTHER
CLIENTS WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT
ISSUE.
MORE IN THE CONSUMER END OF IT.
BUT HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT AND FOLLOW UP.
I THINK IT WILL THAT MAY VERY
WELL BEHOOVE THE THE EFFORT TO
HAVE SOME KIND OF A UNIFORM SET
OF DEFINITIONS AND EXPECTATIONS.
BUT WE HAVE BEEN SEEN A WHOLE
LOT OF.
IDEAS COMING FROM THOSE WHO ARE
OPPOSING YOUR MEASURE SO MAYBE
THAT'S SOMETHING WITH ALL THESE
BRILLIANT MINDS IN THE ROOM AND
THERE ARE MANY OF THEM. OF WE
COULD COME TO SOME AGREEMENT
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE I I
DON'T THINK SHE'S SAYING NO. IS
GOING TO.
SATISFY THE CONSUMERS OF THIS
AND WHAT IS IT TWENTY OTHER
STATES WHO ARE. VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT.
THE CHALLENGES TO INTERNET
ACCESS TO THAT WE'RE SEEING NOW
COMING OUT OF THE FCC.
SENATOR STERN DID YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS.
WELL I'M SORRY.
SENATOR MORE LOT FOLLOWED BY
SENATOR STERN.
CENTER DELEON AYE I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR REMOVING THE CPUC.
FROM YOUR BILL.
.
SEEMS LIKE AN INDICTMENT ON
WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE COULD
DO A BETTER JOB THAN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BETTA ELISE SHOULD
NOT ENCOURAGING INCOMPETENT SO I
APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I THINK.
THE CPUC HAS BEEN A REAL
DISAPPOINTMENT TO ME.
TAKING OVER EIGHT YEARS TO
CREATE FIRE MAPS AND NOW WE
HAVE.
A LOT OF LIVES LOST BOTH THE
NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SO.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE
THAT WAS. AMAZING SHE'S YOU TO
THROW DARTS WOULD DO YOU HAVE A
QUESTION OR COMMENTS ARE NOT
ALONE IN THAT CATEGORY BUT THANK
YOU MADAM CHAIR I DO HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS.
I AM CONCERNED.
ABOUT THE PREEMPTION COMPONENT.
AND.
.
YOU SAID THERE'S A SENATE BILL.
IN THE U. S. SENATE RIGHT NOW
WITH SUPPORT I'M JUST WONDERING
MAYBE YOU CAN.
WORK ON THAT ONE NEXT JANUARY
AFTER YOUR SWORN IN.
YEAH HOTEL.
I'M SORRY THAT WAS ANOTHER GUARD
LIVES.
WHICH THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM I AM
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT FIFTY
DIFFERENT STATES.
FIFTY DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES.
AND NOW YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THE
CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
WHICH KIND IT SEEMS LIKE A
CONSUMER. ATTORNEY JOB ACT SO DO
WE HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES FOR THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM BECAUSE I I SEE
A LOT OF ACTIVITY RABIES.
SPROUTING UP FROM A RESULT OF
THIS BILL WHAT ARE WE GONNA
FIND.
THE JUDICIARY AYE I THINK I CAN
SAY THIS IS A.
YOU WERE ACTION THE SAME PAGE.
MYSTIFIES SURE WITH REGARDS TO
THE MEDIA OVERARCHING CONCERN
THAT.
YOU POTENTIAL MAY HAVE OF FIFTY.
DIFFERENT SET OF OVERALL SO IF
FOOT FOR THE THE GOOD FOLKS WHO.
WHO CAME OUT?
IN IN OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE
TO TESTIFY THE MEASURE. AND I
UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.
COMPLETELY.
IT IS NOT IDEAL TO HAVE FIFTY.
DIFFERENT SETS OF OF OF
REGULATIONS LET ALONE.
A DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S AS WELLS
AS CITY ATTORNEY'S DIFFERENT
PERSONALITIES DIFFERENT
POLITICAL AGENDAS DIFFERENT
IDEAS DIFFERENT VISIONS.
.
I THINK ORIGINALLY I RECEIVE
THE TWENTY FIFTEEN.
.
NET NEUTRALITY.
.
REGULATIONS SHOULD NEVER HAVE
BEEN VACATED TO BEGIN WITH HENCE
THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO WITH NOW POLICY WISE.
WHICH LEAVES US AS POLICY MAKERS
ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
YOU KNOW DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS
REPUBLICANS.
TO TRY TO MOVE POLICY FOUR TO
DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE VACATION OF
THE VACATED.
LA REGULATIONS SO I I I DO
AGREE THAT IDEALLY.
A.
THE BEST WAY TO DO IT THIS IS
WITH UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE BOARD
HAVING A SET OF RULES THAT IT
WILL KEP IT HERE TO. A AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL.
THIS IS A REACTION TO RESULTS
OF.
THE FCC'S DECISION.
A MONTH AGO TO VACATE THOSE
POLICIES SO THEREFORE WE OF THE
STATE'S INCOME AND ASSETS
POLICYMAKERS.
NOW TO MOVE FORWARD POLICIES NOW
WE MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE IN
OBVIOUS IN THE LAST CAMINO
ENERGY I CAN SAY THIS THAT.
WITH REGARDS TO THE P. YOU SEE.
THERE WAS UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE
BOARD WOULD DEMOCRATS AS WELL AS
REPUBLICANS WITH REGARDS TO THE
RESERVATIONS FOLKS HAD. WITH
THEM BEING THE REGULATORY BODY
THAT DEVELOPS.
IN THE.
ANY RULES AS IT RELATES TO.
THE POLICY ISSUE THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO.
A CONFRONT AT THIS MOMENT.
SO THEREFORE AFTER ENGAGING
WITHTHE STAKEHOLDERS WE REMOVED
AND THAT THE P. YOU SEE A FROM
THE EQUATION.
ALTOGETHER.
BUT I THINK THAT YOU KNOW THERE
IS A LOT MORE.
WE HAVE A THING IN COMMON WITH
WITH REGARDS TO.
THE ISSUE OF OF OF NET
NEUTRALITY.
.
JUDICIARY NBC THAT'S A BUDGETARY
ISSUE THAT WILL BE ENGAGING
WITH.
.
IN THE BUDGET YOU KNOW.
SOON.
I KNOW THERE'S A. A NET
INCREASE THAT THE GOVERNOR HAS
PUT IN HIS BUDGET AT THE NET
INCREASE SEVEN SO THE SIZE OF
THE INCREASE OF THIS. YOU KNOW I
KNOW THAT YOU WILL HAVE
ADVOCATES PRESUMABLY YOU MISTER
VICE CHAIR AS WELL AS.
CERTAINLY MISTER.
MADAM CHAIR AND.
MISTER UP A MISTER WILL KOWSKI
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY STRONG
PUBLIC.
PASSION.
PROPONENTS OF INCREASING THE
BUDGET FOR THE JUDICIARY THAT'S
AN ISSUE THAT WOULD T FLING
GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT YOU
KNOW AS WE ENTER NEGOTIATIONS ON
THE BUDGET. AND WHAT ARE OUR
PRIORITIES AS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
AS IT RELATES TO THE JUDGE
JUDICIARY BRANCH AND WANT TO
DEVIATE TOO MUCH FROM ORIGINAL
POINTS BUT. I JUST WANT TO SORT
OUT TO THE BEST MY ABILITY SORT
OF.
.
RECOGNIZE.
YOUR LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.
THANK YOU CENTER DELEON EGGMAN
STRUCTURE.
AND OF COURSE THE INVITATION IS
OUT TO THE OPPOSITION THE OF NOT
THE P. YOU SEE AND I'M I DON'T
THINK THERE'S.
ANY REAL CHALLENGE THERE IN
TERMS OF THERE MIGHT BE A BETTER
WAY TO DO THIS.
WE CERTAINLY I'M SURE WOULD ALL
WELCOME YOUR SUGGESTIONS ON. A
AN AGENCY OR ENTITY THAT WOULD
BE ABLE TO CREATE A STATEWIDE.
PROGRAM RATHER THAN AGAIN RELY
ON FIFTY DIFFERENT COUNTIES BUT.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE COMING
FORWARD SO I'M GONNA ASSUME YOU
HAVEN'T GIVEN THAT THOUGHT. THAT
YOU WILL INCOME BACK TO US WITH
YOUR SUGGESTED RESOLUTION.
WILL GO TO A SENATOR STERN AND
THEN SENATOR ANDERSON.
THANK YOU VENTURE.
.
THEY'RE USEFUL COLLOQUY SO FAR
ACTUALLY AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
MISSING THE LAST HEARING IN.
SENATE ENERGY.
.
I DIDN'T WANT TO JUST GET YOUR
TAKE I SHARE YOUR RELUCTANCE
SAN.
THIS THIS POSITION WE FIND
OURSELVES AND WE DON'T REALLY
WANT EVEN BE HERE PUSHING STATE
LEGISLATION WE WISH THAT THE FCC
WAS. DOING ITS JOB AND IT SEEMS
LIKE THAT OCCUPIES A LOT OF OUR
TIME IN THIS LEGISLATURE THESE
DAYS IS JUST FILLING HOLES LEFT
FROM WASHINGTON.
.
EFFICACY OF THIS SORT OF
APPROACH THIS LEGAL REMEDIES
APPROACH AND USING THE COURTS
VERSES
THIS ORDER REGULATORY BODY DE
THE INDUSTRY'S EVOLVING.
QUICKLY.
AND I JUST WANTED TO HEAR
MECHANICALLY AND THIS MAY BE
MORE FROM. YOUR SUPPORTERS OR
STAFF BUT.
.
MECHANICALLY HOW YOU ACTUALLY
SEE THE IMPLEMENTATION HERE
WORKING SO.
WOULD IT BE.
A MULTI PARTY ACTION FROM A
NUMBER OF COUNTIES TRYING TO
SORT OF THROUGH THROUGH ONE
PRECEDING ESTABLISH.
BASICALLY A REGULATORY PARADIGM
SET UP BY THE COURTS OR WOULD IT
BE.
LA MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF
RULES THEN SO NO MY COUNTY IN
AND THAT.
I DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION
WE'D SEE POTENTIALLY A SORT OF
DIFFERENT APPROACH TO.
INTERPRETING ANY OF THE
DEFINITIONS ON THIS BILL SO I
JUST WANTED HERE PRACTICALLY IF
IF IF OUR HANG GETS FORCE AND
THIS THIS BILL BEFORE US TODAY
BECOMES LAW WHAT WHAT IS IT
ACTUALLY.
PRACTICALLY LOOK LIKE.
METADATA WISH TO RESPOND
TOGETHER AT YOUR HOUSE OUR HANDS
AGAIN.
JUST VERY BRIEFLY WELL A COUPLE
OF THINGS I MEAN ONE THE
INITIAL.
.
YOU GOAL OF THE BILL WAS TO HAVE
SI PC RIGHT TO COME TO HAVE THAT
CONSISTENCY.
BUT WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND
THAT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST
STATUES. ASSUMING THIS PASSES IT
WILL GO ON THE BOOKS. TO GIVE
SOME RIGHTS OF THE CONSUMER
LEGAL REMEDIES ACT UP I CAN TALK
ABOUT ANOTHER CONTEXT. THAT WE
REGULARLY FAST LOCAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S CITY ATTORNEYS TO
HAVE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS IT'S
NOT NEW. FOR THE SICK AND IN
FACT EVEN OUR CRIMINAL LAWS IT'S
NOT NEW THE LEGISLATURE. CREATES
DEFINITIONS DIPLOMACY CASE ALL
THAT WILL EVOLVE FROM THERE TO
HELP REFINING DEFINITIONS ANY
CHALLENGES. AND THEN THEY ARE
EXPECTED IN THEIR CHARGE IS TO
THEN IMPLEMENT THE LAW.
YOU KNOW THE SAME STATEWIDE.
IN THE CONTEXT OF CAR
DEALERSHIPS IN THE CONTEXT OF A
THING WE WORKED ON A BILL LAST
YEAR FOR IF I MAY.
CENTER HERTZBERG ON.
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
AND YOU KNOW TO PROTECTION FOR
CONSUMERS SO THIS ISN'T ANYTHING
NEW I HAVE WORKED WITH DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OFFICES ON CONSUMER
CAPTION ENFORCEMENT. AND THEY
REALLY DO LOOK TOWARDS WHATEVER
THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED IS A
STATUTE TO FOLLOW THAT. WHAT
TENDS TO HAPPEN IS THAT IT'S
INDIVIDUAL LIKE IN THE DA
CONTACTS? TENDS TO HAPPEN IS
THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN COUNTIES
THAT HAVE CONSUMER REJECTION
UNITS.
IN THE DA'S OFFICE AND DIEGO
HAS BEEN VERY.
HAS A LONG TRACK RECORD LA
OTHER COUNTIES LIKE THAT AND
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT TEND TO
TAKE UP.
THE CASES SO. TO THE EXTENT
WHICH DA'S ARE ALLOWED TO BRING
CASES.
THEY HAVE EXPERIENCE CONSUMER
ORIENTED.
VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE.
PROSECUTORS THAT WILL FALL THE
STATE LAW SO THE QUESTION IS
WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU KNOW ARE WE
GONNA HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
THE DEFINITIONS.
IT WILL MAKE THE DEFINITIONS PUT
INTO THIS BILL THAT MUCH MORE
IMPORTANT
BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO
FOLLOW THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA
COME UP WITH NEW DEFINITIONS ON
A COUNTY BY COUNTY BASIS THAT'S
NOT THEIR CHARGE THAT'S NOT
ALLOWABLE.
.
YOU KNOW THERE WAS SOME.
NICE SYMMETRY TO HAVE THE YOU
KNOW THE COMMISSION THE CQC PLAY
SOME ROLE SO THAT WAY YOU KNOW
EVERYONE CAN WALK AWAY KNOWING
THAT THE COMMISSION IS GONNA
HAVE KIND OF A CENTRAL. A
OVERSIGHT OF THIS NOW THE
OPPOSITION DIDN'T WANT IT THERE
ARE OTHER CONCERNS WITHOUT
OPERATED SO THE OTHER OPTION
WHICH I THOUGHT I HEARD I COULD
BE WRONG LAST WEEK WAS AT THE
EVEN SOME OF THE. OPPONENTS
THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER NOT
HAVE CPUC IN HAVE HAVE IT THIS
WAY.
IS THAT THIS IS HOW OUR LAWS
WORKING CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
PASSES THEM AND LOCAL DA'S.
HAVE TO ENFORCE THE IT'S IT'S
NOT NEW. SO. I UNDERSTAND THAT
THE CONCERN IN THE ARGUE THAT WE
NOT HAVE FIFTY DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS AND AND CLEARLY
THERE MIGHT BE CASES WHERE
THERE'S ARGUMENT OVER EXIT Y..
BUT THE DEFINITIONS ARE TIGHT.
THAT'S AT THE DA'S HAVE TO
FOLLOW IT'S NOTHING NEW FOR
THEM.
AND SO.
AROUND OF LITIGATION POTENTIALLY
AFTER THE BILL PASSES SO COULD
BE. CASE BY CASE DETERMINATIONS
AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ONE
ROUND OF THAT BUT THEN ANOTHER
ROUND AND. WHAT I I CAN'T
PICTURE?
ARE ARE BROADBAND SERVICE
PROVIDERS ARE AS PEAS OUT THERE.
OFFERING A DIFFERENT PRODUCT AND
SONOMA COUNTY VERSES LA COUNTY I
MEAN.
IN TERMS OF WHAT AN UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICE LOOKS LIKE I
THINK WHAT THE PREMISE OF HIS
BILL AND CORRCT ME IF I'M WRONG
BUT THAT THE ENTIRE NOTION. OF.
OF.
OF PROVIDING SERVICE WITH ACCESS
TO THOSE OF SORT A PAY TO PLAY
ACCESS DESERVES. IS INHERENTLY
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE SO THAT
THE THE ENTIRE NATURE OF THE
SERVICE AS A WHOLE IS AN UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICE SAYING CAN YOU
FIRST SEE. A LIKE A GIANT CLASS
ACTION HERE OR SOME KIND OF
GROUP ACTION TO PROVIDE.
SOME KIND OF UNIFORMITY OR OR
THAT IS NOT HOW THE LOFT
FUNCTIONS.
I MEAN I I CAN THE SILLY SPEAK
TO THAT END PREDICT SOME SORT OF
BACKPACK COSSACKS OUT I THINK
THAT'S I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE
AUTHOR CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK
THAT'S WHAT TEN.
WHAT THE END GOAL OF HOW THE
BILL AS DRAFTED IT SIMPLY TRYING
TO TIED INTO AN EXISTING?
YOU KNOW CONSUMER PROTECTION
STATUTE.
SO I BI THINK THAT'S ALL.
SPECULATIVE AS FAR AS WHAT WHAT
THE OUTCOME WOULD BE.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT AS YOU
SAID I MEAN WE'RE TALK ABOUT
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IF
THERE'S GOING TO BE A CASE
BROUGHT.
AND IT'S VERY CLEAR IF YOU'RE
GIVING PREFERENCE
YOU KNOW TWO ONE CONTENT OVER
ANOTHER.
I MEAN I THINK THOSE ARE THE
THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE
LITIGATED CAN BE LAST THE
DEFINITION IS GOING TO BE MORE
THE FACTS OF WHETHER IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE. LET LET ME JUST
CLOSE Y STATE MAY BECAUSE I'D I
TRIED NOT TO TAKE TIME EARLIER.
WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT
WHEN THE FCC ADOPTED THE INITIAL
ORDER.
IT WAS NOT DONE IN A VACUUM.
THERE WAS EVIDENCE PROVIDED.
THAT.
THE PROVIDERS WERE ALREADY.
PICKING AND CHOOSING.
A CONTENT INTRIGUING CONTENT
DIFFERENTLY SO THIS THOUGH IT'S
ALREADY BEEN DONE AND SO WHEN WE
HEAR ALL WHAT WE YOU KNOW. WE
WANT TO DO THIS WE WANT TO
FOLLOW THE LAW WOULD HAVE TO
WORRY ABOUT IT.
WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THERE'S
ALREADY EVIDENCE THAT WAS
PROVIDED THE FEDERAL LEVEL THAT
THEY WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THIS SO.
WHOEVER IT IS
PEOPLE AND SO WHAT THE
COMMISSION. I DEFER TO THE
AUTHOR YOU KNOWS YOU KNOW AND WE
TRUST THE AUTHORED MAKE RIGHT
DECISIONS ON.
IF IT'S NOT GONNA BE LOCAL THEN
WHO'S GOING TO BE.
IF I COULD JUST CLOSE MY
QUESTIONS.
WITH IT BRIEF COMMENT WHICH IS
THAT I HOPE.
THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO PASS THIS BILL
AND THAT THIS ISSUE GETS
RESOLVED.
IN FEDERAL COURT.
IF CONGRESS A C. DEEMS FIT TO
ACT AYE AYE AYE BUT I HOPE IS
NOT A STRATEGY.
.
GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF
DEFINITIONAL CLARITY IF THIS
ACTUALLY IS GOING TO BE SOME
KIND OF PARADIGM HERE AND THAT
WE'RE STILL SEEKING WHAT THAT
DEFINITION FOR INSTANCE OF
REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT
MIGHT BE OR ANYTHING ELSE IN THE
BILL THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION I
WOULD JUST ASK.
FROM THE AUTHOR'S PERSPECTIVE
THAT.
STAYING CLOSE TO THIS COMMITTEE.
TRYING TO WORK WITH US.
THIS IS WE'RE IN UNCHARTED
WATERS HERE AND.
IT'S NOT A SPOT A STATE
LEGISLATOR WANTS TO BE IN BUT
HERE WE ARE SO. I'LL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY BUT.
HOPE YOU CAN CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE THAT ADDITIONAL CLARITY
SO THAT.
WE'RE NOT.
JUST RELYING ON THE COURTS TO TO
BASICALLY PLAY REGULATORS.
I THINK THERE'S SOME JUST
INHERENT.
.
CONFLICT WITH THAT KIND OF
PARENTS OF THANK YOU THINK HE
CENTER STERN COURSE THAT'S WHY
WE'RE. THE THIRD TIME I'D LIKE
TO INVITE THE OPPOSITION IF YOU
HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS.
TO COME FORWARD AND IF NOT NOW
THEN AT LEAST BE WORKING ON THIS
BECAUSE.
THIS IS OF A CRITICAL ISSUE THIS
IS AN SHOWS LIKE.
YOU KNOW TRYING TO ADDRESS A
SMALL PROBLEM THIS REALLY DOES
TO WITH ACCESS IN THE TWENTY
FIRST CENTURY TO THE MEDIUM
WHICH BOTH PROVIDES US WITH
INFORMATION. THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PURCHASE GOODS AND SERVICES.
AND.
TO COMMUNICATE. A AMONGST
OURSELVES AND WITH OTHER PEOPLE
OF. FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES AND
PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE MINDED IN
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LIKE MINDED.
IT REALLY IS THE CRITICAL MEDIUM
I THINK OF OUR TIME SO.
APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS AND
HOPE THAT EVERYONE WILL TRY TO
WORK TOGETHER. BOMB THERE WILL
BE LITIGATION I SHOULD NOTE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE COURTS
AND.
I SUSPECT A WITH A LOT OF AREAS
WHERE WE.
BREAK GROUND. IT SUBJECT TO
LITIGATION BUT THAT'S WHAT
LITIGATION IS AS FAR AS FEDERAL
PREEMPTION THAT ISSUE WILL BE
HEARD IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.
AND I HOPE IF WE CAN KEEP THE
LIGHTS ON THAT THEY WILL BE
FUNDED APPROPRIATELY AS THEY
SHOULD BE AS FAR AS WHAT WE DO
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. I KNOW THE
LIGHTS ARE STILL ON AND WE WILL.
I'M SURE LITIGATE THESE ISSUES
SAYS AS NECESSARY.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE
AFRAID OF THAT BECAUSE.
THAT'S WHAT WE DO HERE WE DO
POLICY AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE LAW
AND THAT'LL BE CHALLENGED IF
PEOPLE THINK IT DOESN'T AND
THAT'S.
HOW DEMOCRACY SHOULD FUNCTION
THAT IS US AT OUR BEST SO WITH
THAT SENATOR ANDERSON?
I DON'T KNOW IF. IS HERE'S ME I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER
THIS OR NOT BUT.
.
IN I LOOKED A HACKED ALLOW THE
WEBSITES IN A LOT OF THE
PROVIDERS.
PUT THEIR PRINCIPLES ON THE
WEBSITE
AND YOU KNOW THEY TALK ABOUT NO
BLOCKING OR THROTTLING.
.
IN THE AG ALREADY HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO PURSUE WOMAN.
NORMALLY WHEN PEOPLE HAVE
PROBLEMS MY PHONE RINGS OFF THE
HOOK AYE I MAKE MYSELF VERY
AVAILABLE TO MY CONSTITUENTS
ATWATER COMMUNITY COFFEES.
THIS IS NOT BEEN AN ISSUE THAT
PEOPLE HAVE SAID ALL MY GOSH
THIS IS HORRIBLE. BUT I'M ONLY
ONE SECTION OF THE STATE THERE
COULD BE DIFFERENT THINGS ONE IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATE.
HAS THE AG EVER.
I'D DONE A LAWSUIT OR A
THREATENING LETTER TO ANY OF THE
PROVIDERS AS A BEACON AMY ANSWER
THAT.
A FRIEND TO MISTERANDERSON THE
CURRENT AG CALIFORNIA OR THE OUR
CURRENT ARE BECAUSE. YOU KNOW IF
THEY'RE ADVERTISING A PRODUCT IN
YOU DON'T PROVIDING THAT PRODUCT
IT'S.
YOU KNOW YOU CAN PURSUE THEM
BASED ON THAT YOU KNOW TO MY
KNOWLEDGE I KNOW I I DON'T KNOW
YOU KNOW REFER THAT QUESTION TO.
MR NOW AND IS.
I KNOW THAT OUR AGES RELATIVELY
NEW IN TERMS OF HIS UPON ANY AGM
NOT.
I STIMULATE US.
SOME NOT MISTAKING CALIFORNIA'S
ONE OF THE.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ONE OF THE
STATES THAT HAS JOINED WITH.
EIGHTEEN NINETEEN TWENTY OTHER
STATES LIKE I DIDN'T COUNT BUT I
DID REFERENCE SAID EARLIER.
BESIDES CALIFORNIA NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT DELAWARE EATEN UP ON
PAGE EIGHTEEN OF THE ANALYSIS
HAWAII ILLINOIS IOWA. MAINE
MARYLAND MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI.
NEW MEXICO NORTH CAROLINA OREGON
RHODE ISLAND VERMONT WASHINGTON
AND CAN THE KENTUCKY
MASSACHUSETTS. PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA HAVE ALL FILED A
PROTECTED PETITION FOR REVIEW.
WITH UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA ON THIS VERY ISSUE.
SO.
THE OF THE MODERN CHURCH YES TO
YOUR QUESTION RIGHT THERE.
.
THE FILESYSTEM TO WORKING.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE
MOVING FORCE OR MAKING A
DUPLICATE PROCESS.
SO NOW WE WILL JUST HAVE THE AG
DOING IT AND ALL THE AGES TWO
AND NOW WE HAVE ALL THE COUNTY
IS DOING THAT.
WE HAVE CRIMES ALL THE CITY'S
DOING AT.
I AYE. WHY ONE OF PROTECT PEOPLE
AND I WANT ENSURE THEY GET THE
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT PAID
FOR?
REPLY AFFECT WITH THIS BILL.
SENSUALLY.
IS TEN TIMES WORSE BECAUSE WILL
HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE GOING ON
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY CHAIRMAN
KEEPS TALKING ABOUT WHO HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO GO TO. COMMAND
CHAIR THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY
POINT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THE
AUTHORITY.
I KNOW THAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR I
THINK THEY MAY ALSO HAS SOME TO
SAY BEFORE I GIVE THE MY CONCERN
OF SOME OF THE FAMILY SAY THAT
THERE MAY BE A LITTLE CONFUSION
AND NO INTERPRETATION IS WITH
REGARDS TO THE STATEMENT THAT
ARE. CHAIR JUST MADE.
WITH REGARD THE CURRENT PENDING
LITIGATION OF THE. ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OF THESE RESPECTIVE
STATES WITH OF THE BLUES BE BLUE
STATES OR RED STATES.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND I
THINK MADAM CHAIR AND RECEIVED A
STAFF COUNSEL WOULD KNOW BETTER.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
THESIS BEHIND THIS LITIGATION OF
BOTH A REPUBLICAN AS WELL
DEMOCRATIC. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OF THE NAMES OF THE STATE'S
OF-WHICH IS SO. ARTICULATED ARE
ALL
BASED ON THE ISSUE OF PREEMPTION
LOVELY SPECIFICALLY ON THE ISSUE
OF PREEMPTION. NOT ON THE ISSUE
OF.
THE SLOWING DOWN THROTTLING.
PAID CONTENT TWO SEPARATE
ISSUES AND I THINK YOU NEED TO
BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT AND
THAT'S SORT OF. WHAT THEY'RE
ALLOWED IS I ACTUALLY HAVE THE
RIVER SUIT BASED ON THOSE ITEMS?
WHEN THE CHAIR SAID THAT WE HAD
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE GET
SOME WELL MAYBE WE'RE TALKING
APPLES AND ORANGES MISTER
ANDERSON BECAUSE WHAT I WHAT I
WAS SAYING IS THAT THE FCC. THAT
THE RULES OR THE REMOVAL OF THE
RULES BY ANNA IS WHAT IS BEING
CHALLENGED NOW THE THE FCC MADE
A DECISION BACK IN TWENTY
FIFTEEN AND SET FORTH SOME
GROUND RULES.
A COUPLE MONTHS AGO THE NEW FCC
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE REVOKED
THOSE.
AND I THINK CREATED SOME
TENTATIVE NEW RULINGS AND THAT
IS WHAT'S BEING CHALLENGE SO.
WE THIS IS LEGISLATION.
THAT HAS YET TO BE CHALLENGE
BECAUSE IT'S NOT YET THE LAW. OF
BUT THERE HAS BEEN AN ACTIVE
EFFORT BY OVER TWENTY STATES.
TO CHALLENGE THE RULING OF THE
FCC WHICH HAS
A LIFTED EXISTING LAWS WHICH
PROTECT INTERNET NEUTRALITY
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. IN THE
LITIGATION I I HOPE THAT
EXPLAINS IT FOR YOU WELL.
LET ME.
PRETTY SHRIMP POINTS AND.
SO.
WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHO'S NOT AFRAID OF STEPPING UP.
IN PURSUING. PROTECTIONS FOR
CONSUMERS ALTHOUGH THIS IS
APPLES TO ORANGES PRES ARE
DEMONSTRATED THESE GOING TO
PROTEST WITH OTHER STATES ARE TO
MAKE SURE IS CLARITY OF THAT
THAT THERE'S NOT PREEMPTION.
WE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS HAVE.
RULES ABOUT CONSUMER LOS.
AND WE HAVE.
PROVIDERS THEY HAVE THEY HAVE
SET.
THEIR STANDARDS ON THE WEB.
SO.
REALLY THERE'S NOTHING
PROHIBITING A G. IF THERE WAS A
NEED.
AND WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT HIS
THE INTERNET IS SO.
DIFFICULT GET YOUR ARMS AROUND
BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK THAT
YOU'RE TAKING CARE OF SOMETHING
HERE TO CREATE A RIPPLE EFFECT.
THAT HARMS INNOVATION THAT HARMS
POSSIBILITIES TIMELINE.
I'M WORRIED THAT WERE MOVING TO
AGGRESSIVELY ONE WE HAVEN'T
GIVEN THE AG THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DO HIS JOB.
AND HE'S ARE SHOWN AND
DEMONSTRATED.
THAT HE'S WILLING TO PURSUE IT
ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL A DIFFERENT
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ISSUE.
SO I WON WE LOVE HIM.
TO IT ON THIS ISSUE.
NO ONE'S LOCKING MY DOOR DOWN
SAYING THAT.
THEY HAVE A CLASS ACTION SUIT
THEIR SOUL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
THAT ARE BEING DENIED BECAUSE
THEY'RE BEING THROTTLED OR OR.
THERE'S THIRDS THAT DEMANDS OUT
THERE. IF THE RISK.
TO INNOVATION THE RISK TO MOVING
FORWARD IS SO GREAT BECAUSE
WE'RE TRYING TO.
TAG GET OUT AHEAD OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND I GET.
THEY HAD.
YOUR ALL AND HAPPY WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I GET THAT YOU PICKED OUT LONG.
LONG SESSION LAST YEAR'S.
PURSUING.
PUNISHING THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WITH STATE LAW.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO CONSUMERS
PUNISHED
BECAUSE WE DIDN'T.
WE WERE SO EAGER TO GET EVEN
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WE
LOST TRACK OF THE GOAL.
WE KNOW THAT'S A G. S..
HAS ALREADY STEPPED UP ONCE ON
A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
THERE IS NO REASONABLE LEVY QUIN
STEP UP NOW.
IF THERE WERE A HUNDRED PEOPLE
OUT THERE COMPLAINING HERE HAVE
THE GROUNDS TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT TO TURN AROUND AND THEN MAKE
IT CONFUSED ESTHER EVERY CITY
AND COUNTY.
I I MEAN I'M MORE WORRIED THAT
I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO
THE INTERNET BECAUSE YOU MADE IT
SO DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO COMPLY.
THAT I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE
ACCESS.
YEAH AND TO ME THAT'S THE
GREATEST THREAT I'M MOVING
FORWARD NOW WE RUSH THIS BILL
THROUGH.
I WE TOOK A FAST TRACK.
.
IN THIS COMMITTEE AND NOW TO THE
FLOOR WE DON'T HAVE TO BE THIS
MUCH IN A RUSH UNLESS ALL MY
COLLEAGUES. ARE GETTING A WHOLE
BUNCH OF PHONE CALLS FROM
VICTIMS FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS
COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
OF WHICH IF WE DID DIDN'T SEE IT
ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPER
AND WE DON'T.
SO I WOULD JUST HAVE TO ASK THAT
WE.
WAIT UNTIL WE'VE.
THOUGHT THIS THING THROUGH
COMPLETELY.
BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD AND FOR
THAT REASON I DON'T THE
GOVERNMENT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT
EACH DAY ALTHOUGH. I CERTAINLY
WANT TO HAVE ALL THE PROTECTIONS
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A
NEED.
I'VE AT THAT SENATOR STERN DID
YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING I I
JUST WANT TO OFFER MY TESTIMONY
THAT I AM GETTING MY. DOOR BANG
DOWN AND.
A LOT OF CALLS IN THE DISTRICT
IF THAT WERE THE MEASURE BY THE
WAY OF HOW WE DO POLICY HERE I
THINK COULD BE A. VERY ODD
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BUT I DID
WANT TO SAY I.
CLEARLY ON THAT QUESTION OF AG
ENFORCEMENT OF I THINK WHAT
YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES UNDER
EXISTING LAW AND LOOKING AT
ENFORCING F. T. C. RULES AS WELL
POTENTIALLY ON. HER OF ARE THEY
LYING.
RIGHT ARE ARE THE I IS PEAS
LYING WHEN THEY SAY. WE'RE NOT
THROTTLING U. OR HERE'S OUR
CONTRACT AND.
IF THEY ARE THAT'S ILLEGAL AND
IF IF THEY'RE NOT GOING THE
CONTRACTS RE BEING STRAIGHT
WITH THE CONSUMERS THEN IT'S NOT
AND THAT'S. YOU MAKE THE DEAL
AND YOU PAY FIFTY BUCKS A MONTH
IN THOSE THE TERMS YOUR
AGREEMENT SO.
.
MAYBE A IT IF NOT TODAY I EXITED
KNOWING THAT LEGAL HISTORY OR OR
WHETHER ANY OF THAT THAT. KIND
OF ACTION IS BEEN PURSUED I
THINK WOULD ACTUALLY BE HELPFUL
TO SEE. THAT'S OUR AGING NEED
ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.
DOES IT ALREADY EXISTS I KNOW
IN THE PRIVACY CONTEXT THERE IS
SOME THERE ARE SOME PROTECTIONS
UNDER EXISTING LAW.
BUT I I ACTUALLY THAT WOULD BE
A USEFUL PIECE OF CLARITY
ATTENTION FROM THE AUTHOR
COMMITTEE STAFF I MIGHT'VE
MISSED IN THE ANALYSIS BUT
MADAM%
CHAIR IF IF I HAD A WHOLE BUNCH
OF PEOPLE CONTACTING ME. I
CERTAINLY WOULDN'T SEND A LETTER
TO THE AG AND ASK HIM TO. TO
PURSUE IT. SO I HOPE THAT MY
COLLEAGUES TO EITHER THANK YOU I
THINK THE ISSUE HERE IN THE
CONFUSION IS. THAT THE FCC A FEW
MONTHS AGO TOOK AWAY RULES THAT
HAVE ESSENTIALLY BEEN IN PLACE
SINCE TWO THOUSAND FIVE WHICH
WORK CLARIFIED WITH SOME LEVEL.
OF CLARITY IN TWO THOUSAND AND
FIFTEEN SO THE FACT THAT YOU MAY
NOT BE HEARING PEOPLE IS THAT
I'M NOT SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE.
OF TRUST WHAT THE ROOM WERE
CHANGING OF THESE RULES DOES
BOARD THE CHANGING OF THE RULES
TO. TO.
THE PROTECTION ABOUT INTERNET
NEUTRALITY AND I JUST WANT TO
SAY THAT YOU MAY FEW WHAT HAS
BEEN HAPPENING IN CALIFORNIA'S
PUNISHING THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
I THINK MOST OF US IN CALIFORNIA
LOOK AT THE ACTIONS WE'VE TAKEN
HAVE BEEN TO PROTECT THE VALUES
OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST OF.
OF BEHAVIOR THAT IS BEING. TAKEN
IN WASHINGTON AND IN THIS
INSTANCE BY THE FCC THAT IS.
VIEWED BY SOME AS RECKLESS
UNCONSCIONABLE AND OTHERWISE.
THREATENING TO THE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS BY ALLOWING FREE AND
OPEN DISCUSSION. OF BY WAY OF
THE INTERNET SO OR
SOME OTHER ANALOGY THAT I CAN'T
THINK OF RIGHT AT THE MOMENT IT
MIGHT BE MORE APT BUT.
OBVIOUSLY WE'RE SEEING THE WORLD
A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT.
THE SINGING NUN FROM AND NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS SENATOR DALY
ON YOU MAY CLOSE.
FIGURE MUCH A MATTER PRESIDENT
AND COLLEAGUES I APPRECIATE THE
ROBUST A.
COMPOSITION OF ALWAYS LONG
ADMIRED.
MISTER ANDERSON'S ABILITY TO
THREAD THAT NEEDLE IN SUCH A WAY
THAT HE POSITIONS HIMSELF YOU
KNOW AS A NEUTRAL PARTY ABOVE
THE.
ABOVE THE FRAY BUT I IT'S
AGAINST THE GOOD THE DEBATE YOU
KNOW OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW THIS IS
BEEN IN THE FRONT LINES.
FROM PAGE.
AT THE TOP HEADLINES ABOVE THE
FOLD. ON ALMOST EVERY NEWSPAPER
IN AMERICA THOUGH THE VERY FACT
THAT YOU HAVE A GOVERNOR'S
REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS.
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS.
AND NEBRASKA MONTANA.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WE HAVE FOLKS
FROM BOTH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AS WELL AS AS AS LEGISLATORS
FROM LEGENDS LIT LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH.
MOVING FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE OF THE FCC'S.
.
A DECISION TO VACATE THE OBAMA
ERA A NET NEUTRAITY.
.
OF RULES.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IT'S IT'S
CLEAR IN THEM AND THAT THE
DISCUSSION POINTS A VERY
INSTRUCTIVE TO HAVE RECEIVED THE
LAWYERS ON THIS COMMITTEE A
MISTER MAKUA CAO SKEWED AND MR
STERN.
TO ADDRESS SOME OTHER ISSUES
AND WHAT THE POTENTIAL
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
MAY BE. A YOU CLOSE DOWN ONE.
OPTION WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY P.
YOU SEE A AND WHAT WAS
UNIFORMLY.
YOU KNOW.
.
PARTICULATE IT IN A BABY IN THE
VERY BIPARTISAN FASHION FROM
FOLKS WHO.
OF PERHAPS SO SURE THAT TYPE OF
CONFIDENCE IN THE PC FOR
WHATEVER REASONS THAT THEY MAY
HAVE. OTHERS DO OTHERS DON'T BUT
WAS VERY CLEAR IN I HEARD LOUD
AND CLEAR FROM BOTH MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES AS WELL AS
MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.
THAT THE PEACE IS NOT THE
ROUTES WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
WOULD BE THAT OTHER YOU KNOW.
REGULATORY.
BODY WITH ENOUGH AUTHORITY.
AND EXPERTISE.
TO DEVELOP THOSE RULES THAT
WOULD PROTECT CONSUMERS ALTERING
CALIFORNIA BUT THESE HAS BEEN
THE MEASURE OF UC'S TO DO OUR
THING WITH ENOUGH POWER.
HOPEFULLY A BIPARTISAN FASHION
TO PROTECT CONSUMERS OF OF OF
CALIFORNIA.*.
I THINK THAT A MISSION STATEMENT
IS NICE BUT I THINK THAT WHEN
THINGS ARE AYE THERE.
THE OF RULES IN THE REGULATORY
SPACE OR STATUTORY SPACE ON THE
ALLOW. OF GROUP PROTECTIONS WITH
REAL TEETH PROTECT OUR CONSUMERS
ARE TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA. NOT
THAT'S PROCESS WE'RE GOING
THROUGH AS A RESULT OF THE.
ACTION OF THE SEC AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL ULTIMATELY I DO
AGREE WITH FOLKS HERE.
THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS A A
A NATIONAL APPLICATION BY THE
STATUTORILY OR THROUGH THE
REGULATORY PROCESS.
THAT IS NOT HAPPENING SO THAT'S
WHY WE'RE TAKING ACTION.
AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS
WE WE GET THE FEEDBACK FROM
FOLKS AS WELL AS WELL AS A
STAKEHOLDERS IN THOSE IN
OPPOSITION WE LISTEN WE WOULD
WORK WITH THIS AND AND AND WE
MOVE FORWARD BUT.
MADAM CHAIR AS WELL AS.
MISTER.
VICE CHAIR AND IT'S I THINK
YOU'RE MUCH FOR THE ROBUST SO
CONVERSATION AND. WILL CONTINUE
TO WORK ON THIS MEASURE AND AND
RECYCLING* WHENEVER. IS OUR
MOTION.
MOTION BY SENATOR MONNING THAT
THE MEASURE BE RETURNED TO THE
SENATE FLOOR FOR CONSIDERATION
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
JACKSON AYE JACKSON AYE MORE
LOCK.
FOR LOCKE NO ANDERSON.
ANDERSON NO HERTZBERG.
HERTZBERG AYE. MONNING.
MONNING EYES STERN.
WIECKOWSKI.
AS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO WELL MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU WANT
TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE
NOT TAKING THEM BUT THAT YOU
WILL WORK. TO TRY TO GET THOSE
DEFINITIONS THAT HE
UNDERSTANDING POINT AND THAT WAS
A POINT THAT I BELIEVE YOU MADE
IN YOUR CLOTHES YOU'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE BILL.
THAT'S QUITE ALRIGHT THE A GOOD
CLARIFICATION BUT THAT CAN WE
HAVE THAT SPECIFIC ASSURANCE OF
A ONCE AGAIN CENTER DAILY ON THE
JOB CONTINUE WORKING ON. THANK
YOU.
I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT TURN AYE.
WE CASSIE FIVE WIECKOWSKI AYE
ALRIGHT FIVE TO TWO THE THAT
MEASURE IS OUT.
AND WE ARE ADJOURNED