BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1863|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1863
Author: Bowen (D)
Amended: 4/1/02
Vote: 21
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 8-0, 4/9/02
AYES: Bowen, Morrow, Alarcon, Battin, Murray, Sher,
Vasconcellos, Vincent
SUBJECT : Telecommunications services
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill adds to the Legislature's stated
policies for telecommunications. This bill finds that it
is policy to focus efforts on providing specified
institutions with access to advanced telecommunications
services.
ANALYSIS : Current law establishes the policy of
"universal telephone service." Current regulations provide
for the California Teleconnect Fund, which provides
discounted telephone service to schools, libraries, health
care institutions, and community-based organizations.
This bill establishes state policy to focus efforts on
providing educational institutions, health care
institutions, community based organizations, and
governmental institutions with access to advanced
telecommunications services in recognition of their
economic and societal impact.
CONTINUED
SB 1863
Page
2
Background
California has a long history of encouraging the widespread
deployment of telecommunications service. A number of
programs exist to subsidize telephone service in rural
areas, for the deaf and handicapped, and for the poor.
Eight years ago, the Legislature passed and the Governor
signed AB 3643 (Moore & Polanco), Chapter 278, Statutes of
1994, an uncodified measure which recognized that state
action was necessary to prevent society from splitting into
two different "information worlds," one that was
information rich, and the other that was information poor.
That dichotomy has come to be known as the digital divide.
AB 3643 addressed the issue by requiring the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to look at universal
service in the context of changes in technology and
information availability. The bill declared that
"Universal service must be defined in a way that ensures
all segments of California society have access to the
technology that will allow them to enjoy the benefits of
the Information Age and the Information Superhighway."
Among the principles in the bill was that "health care,
community, and government institutions be early recipients
of the benefits of the Information Age."
The CPUC responded to the AB 3643 mandate in part by
creating the California Teleconnect Fund (CTF). This fund,
currently budgeted at $57.125 million annually and funded
by a 0.31 percent surcharge on telephone bills, provides
funding for telephone service discounts of 50 percent to
schools, libraries, and 25 percent to community-based
organizations. Since its inception, more than 99 percent
of the program funds have gone to discounts for schools and
libraries.
This bill buttresses the basis for the CTF program by
codifying the uncodified language from AB 3643 upon which
the CTF is based.
In 1996, Congress enacted legislation similar to AB 3643,
requiring that schools, health care providers, and
SB 1863
Page
3
libraries have access to advanced communications services.
The resulting program, known as the e-rate program,
provides $2.25 billion in telecommunication service
discounts nationwide.
Comments
Who can receive grants ? As noted above, virtually 100
percent of the money in the CTF has been awarded to schools
and libraries. Community-based organizations (CBOs)
believe they've grown exponentially in terms of providing,
through their community technology centers, people with an
important channel for bridging the digital divide.
However, they contend they receive a miniscule amount of
money from the CTF, and it's not fair to provide them with
a lower discount rate than schools and libraries.
This bill is designed to open the discussion on who should
be allowed to apply to the CTF for grants and what types of
grants (and discounts) those applicants should be allowed
to receive.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/10/02)
California Community Technology Policy Group
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
The Children's Partnership
NC:kb 4/11/02 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****