BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
MARTHA M. ESCUTIA, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 2987 - Nunez/Levine Hearing Date:
June 29, 2006 A
As Amended: June 22, 2006 FISCAL B
2
9
8
7
DESCRIPTION
Current law authorizes local governments to grant franchises to
provide cable television service. In awarding a franchise the
local government must assure that access to cable service is not
denied to any group of customers because of their income.
Franchise fees may not exceed 5% of gross revenues. The local
franchising authority may require the franchisee to provide
channel capacity for public, educational, or governmental (PEG)
use.
Current law requires any competitor to an existing cable
operator to provide service to the same entire area as that
operator.
This bill establishes a framework for a state franchise to
provide video service issued by the Secretary of State. Video
service is broadly defined to include cable service as well as
any other cable-like service delivered using the public right of
way, such as AT&T's internet protocol service. The franchise
provides the holder with the same rights to install and maintain
the video network as the telephone companies. The state
franchise authorizes a franchise fee of up to 5%, payable
directly to the local government where service is provided and
gives local government control over the installation of the
video network under the same terms as telephone corporations.
Local government is also given authority to enforce customer
service standards.
This bill prohibits discrimination in the provision of video
service and establishes a specific standard for satisfying that
prohibition. This bill also establishes specific obligations
for building out the video systems by the largest telephone
companies. Reports on the progress toward meeting these
requirements must be provided annually two years after the
franchise is granted. Waivers from these requirements can be
given by the franchising authority under specified conditions
after public hearings. The larger franchisees must provide
annual reports on jobs and employment.
This bill requires a franchisee to provide for the same number
of PEG channels as the incumbent cable operator. Additional PEG
channels are required if there is a demonstrated need. Local
governments are authorized to establish a fee to support the
capital cost of PEG channels and to support institutional
network facilities.
BACKGROUND
The market for television service is dominated by cable. In
California, 63% of households with televisions get their TV from
cable, 27% from satellite, and the remainder over the air.
Advances in technology are making additional competition
possible in the television business. The industry has evolved
from over-the-air broadcast stations to cable-based networks to
satellite-based systems. Now telephone companies are able to
turbocharge their telephone infrastructure to provide cable-like
services.
Telephone company entry into cable markets should be welcomed as
a way to help lower prices, improve service quality, and spur
innovation. Nothing in current law bars telephone companies
from offering cable service. To do so they must go through the
same process for obtaining a local franchise as the cable
operator. Indeed, Verizon has done so in six California cities.
But Verizon and AT&T have argued that the local franchising
process is slow and the requirement that the new franchisee must
build to the same geographic area as the incumbent cable
operator is expensive. They argue that revising existing cable
franchising laws is a necessary inducement for them to invest in
and compete for cable customers. And this raises the classic
public policy question of how to create a level playing field
between competitors, the subject of this bill.
California has two of the top 10 television markets in the
country, and four of the top 26<1>. With the sixth highest
broadband penetration rate of all the states at 28.4%<2> and 34
million residents, California is an attractive market for video
and broadband services.
COMMENTS
It's Not Just TV -- More competition for cable services should
be welcomed, if not encouraged. But this bill is not just about
TV. That's because these new video networks will also provide
---------------------------
<1> Nielsen Media Research
(http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html)
<2> Leichtman Research Group, "New England and Far West Lead in
Broadband Penetration", July 7, 2004 republished at
(http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0407/)
extremely fast Internet service. The leap from dial-up Internet
access to broadband created vast economic opportunities that
were seized upon by iconic California companies such as Google,
Yahoo, and eBay. These new video networks can expand the
availability of broadband to more parts of the state and
materially increase download speeds to create even more economic
opportunities. And as the telecommunications companies market
the bundle of telephone, video, and high speed internet,
broadband penetration rates should rise.
No Price Wars -- One would expect competition to lower cable
rates, but statements by officers of the major
telecommunications companies indicate something a bit different.
Rather than get into price wars over basic cable service, the
telecommunications companies instead intend to market bundles of
service (e.g. telephone, video, high-speed internet, and perhaps
even cellular service) and offer discounts on the bundle.
Advocates for this bill have suggested savings to customers
which are not reflective of the actual market strategies
announced by company officers.
Double Referral -- This bill has been double-referred to the
Senate Rules Committee.
Questions of Interest to the Committee
1.State- or Locally-issued Franchise/Tax or Fee? -- The first
question posed by this bill is whether a state franchising
process should replace the existing local franchising process.
The author argues that the local franchising process is
protracted and expensive, giving local governments an ability
to leverage the potential franchisee with costly new
obligations. Technological advance has created a new, more
competitive world where franchising should be simplified and
streamlined. Local governments argue that the local
franchising process works fine. They note that some cities
have offered the telephone companies an expedited franchise if
they are willing to adopt the identical franchise as the
incumbent cable operator. And if the local franchising
process is protracted or expensive, the state could simply
constrain the local government by requiring timely processing
and restricting their ability to extract concessions,
eliminating the need for establishing a state bureaucracy.
Cities argue that the bill triggers local elections under
Proposition 218 because the franchise fee is tied to the act
of granting the franchise. While the franchise is granted by
the state the franchise fee is imposed locally. If there is
no nexus, the imposition of the local franchise fee could be
considered a tax subject to voter approval. The Senate Local
Government Committee staff concurs with this analysis and has
recommended a fix, which is to impose the franchise fee at the
state level. The author and committee may wish to consider
such an amendment.
2.Gross Revenues/Right of Way/Local Utility Taxes -- Though they
have many concerns, three additional issues are at the core of
local government's opposition: the definition of gross
revenues, local control over the right of way, and preserving
their ability to impose local utility taxes.
The gross revenue definition has importance because it is the
base upon which the franchise fee is levied. Fully two and
one-half pages of the bill are devoted to defining what is and
what is not included in that definition. The authors have
tried to be as inclusive as possible but because the
definition varies among local franchising authorities it has
been difficult to settle on a definition which does result in
less revenue for any city. This is not a question of a level
playing field as all video franchisees will abide by the same
definition. Moreover, additional revenue will accrue to the
city if Verizon and AT&T are successful at luring
non-franchise fee-paying satellite TV customers onto their
franchise fee-paying video services.
Local governments are concerned that the bill limits their
ability to control access to the public right of way, a
critical issue because the new video-capable telecommunication
networks require installation of large refrigerator-sized
boxes every couple hundred homes. There is an argument that
the bill could be construed to allow for a telecommunications
company to not pay the franchise fee. This is not the intent
of the author, and the author and committee may wish to
consider making a technical fix to resolve this issue. The
concern that the bill limits the imposition of local utility
taxes appears unfounded. The bill specifically says that it
does not limit a local entity's ability to impose utility user
taxes (beginning on page 12, line 30).
3.Franchising Authority -- No state agency has volunteered to be
responsible for administering the state franchising process.
This bill has at various times assigned those duties to the
Department of Corporations, Department of Consumer Affairs,
and the Secretary of State. There is no perfect fit in state
government, but the closest fit is the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC already has regulatory
authority over telecommunications companies as well as the
telephone operations of cable companies. It is the only state
agency with an understanding of telecommunications markets and
has for several years analyzed broadband markets, issuing
reports on broadband deployment. And it regularly conducts
public hearings, takes testimony, and examines evidence.
Concerns have been raised about the CPUC's faithfulness to the
law, given their remoteness from Sacramento. This concern can
be at least partially addressed through regular Legislative
oversight. The author and committee may wish to consider
making the state franchising authority the CPUC.
4.Non-discrimination/Build-out Commitments/Technology -- Under a
typical local franchise, the cable company must build out
virtually the entire local community using its best
technology. (Los Angeles is an exception, having divided
itself up into 14 non-overlapping franchise areas.) Many
argue that if the level playing field principle is to apply,
telecommunications companies should have that same obligation.
Requiring a complete build out of an entire city, much less
the telecommunications company's entire telephone foot print,
is probably an unfair burden due both to the engineering/cost
constraints and to the differing circumstances.
Telecommunications companies wish to build their cable
networks in a sort of overlay to their existing telephone
network. The telephone networks consist of linked computer
sites. From each site telephone lines branch out into
neighborhoods like tree branches. These branches are designed
for engineering efficiency and therefore do not coincide with
political boundaries. This contrasts with cable networks
which, because they are locally franchised, were designed and
built to coincide with the local franchisor's political
boundaries.
And it is fair to account for the differing circumstances
between the incumbent cable operator and the
telecommunications company. When the incumbent sought the
franchise there was no competition. Today the
telecommunications company competes against the incumbent
cable operator and satellite providers. This competition
means that financial success is less assured for the
telecommunications companies, though they do have the
considerable advantage of starting with an existing telephone
network and nearly 100% market share for telephone service.
This does not mean that there should not be any buildout
requirement. California has an interest in promoting the
widest possible availability of these services so that the
greatest possible number of customers may benefit. The
authors have negotiated buildout commitments from each of the
two largest telecommunications companies. Those commitments,
25% of customers offered video service within 2 years, and 40%
within 5 years for Verizon, and 35% within 3 years and 50%
within 5 years for AT&T, reflect the different technology and
installation hurdles faced by each company. While well short
of 100%, these requirements are far more than either company
has agreed to in any other state.
The same can be said for the anti-discrimination language.
While discrimination in the offering of video service is
barred, the law is difficult to enforce without numerical
targets. This bill again goes beyond other state and federal
franchising bills by establishing a specific test for ensuring
that discrimination is not occurring. That test, which is
that within three years at least 25% of the households being
offered video service are low income, and 30% within five
years, is measurable and enforceable.
While the authors expect the companies to live up to these
requirements, they are not absolute. After two years the
telecommunications company can seek a waiver of any of these
anti-discrimination and buildout requirements. The waiver can
be granted if the franchising authority finds that the company
has made substantial and continuous effort to meet the
requirements. While some flexibility is reasonable, allowing
a waiver after just two years sends the signal that the
requirements aren't serious. Surely Fortune 500 companies can
make commitments of longer than 2 years. The authors and
committee may wish to consider allowing for the seeking of the
waiver only after the companies have met their 2- and 3-year
buildout requirements.
The second escape hatch is that the five year buildout
requirement, 40% for Verizon and 50% for AT&T, does not apply
until two years after at least 30% of households with access
to their video service subscribe for at least six months.
This is an automatic escape hatch not subject to franchising
authority review. While some flexibility for a lack of
financial success may be reasonable, this metric is hard to
measure and appears to be so high that it may well be
unattainable. The authors and committee may wish to consider
crafting a more reasonable success-based waiver.
Cable companies are required to provide their most capable
technology to all of their customers. Under this bill, AT&T
would be permitted to meet its buildout and
anti-discrimination obligations using its satellite-based
product. This mixes apples and oranges because their
satellite-based product can be offered without a franchise and
is not subject to franchise fees. It is not the subject of
this bill. That product is also not a new video competitor
because it relies on a satellite service which is currently
available. And the product does not result in the degree of
new jobs and investment as their fiber-based product. AT&T
has said that the satellite-based product is an interim
product that will be replaced with their fiber-based product.
While the satellite-based product is a fine product, it is
clearly not as good. The authors and committee may wish to
consider amending the bill so that only AT&T's best product
counts towards meeting its anti-discrimination and buildout
obligations.
5.Cross-subsidy prohibition -- Competition is unfair if one
competitor can use the profits of a relatively uncompetitive
business to subsidize its entry into a relatively competitive
business. This anti-competitive behavior hurts customers
because it creates an unlevel playing field, making it more
likely that competition will be neither robust nor durable.
Most telecommunications markets are competitive, though less
so after the mergers of AT&T/SBC and MCI/Verizon. Competition
keeps a lid on rate increases and so provides a check against
anti-competitive cross subsidy. But the market for basic
residential telephone service is not very competitive. While
there is some substitution of cellular service for basic
residential service, and there are a few competitors, such as
Cox Cable, by and large there is little competition. Indeed
for residential service, AT&T and Verizon, the two largest
telephone companies in the country, don't compete with each
other. And the effect of cross-subsidization could be huge.
With just a $1 increase in basic telephone service rates, AT&T
would raise roughly $100 million annually, fully 30% of what
AT&T is going to invest in California to provide video service
over the next three years, creating a considerable competitive
advantage.
Ensuring there is no cross-subsidization could be accomplished
with a rigorous and continuous examination of the revenues and
expenses of the telephone companies. But the CPUC no longer
has the capacity or inclination to do such work. A simpler,
though less precise, mechanism is to simply cap basic
telephone rates. This is the mechanism used by the CPUC since
the late 1980's to assure that rates for non-competitive
services were reasonable and that cross-subsidies did not
grow. The authors and committee may wish to consider capping
basic telephone service rates at current levels for a period
of time as a means of ensuring that cross-subsidization does
not occur.
6.Opt in/Abrogation -- Cable companies argue that it is unfair
for telecommunication companies providing cable-like service
to operate under a different regulatory scheme. A level
playing field requires that when telecommunication companies
are permitted to operate under a state franchise, so too
should the cable companies, they contend. Opponents argue
that a deal is a deal. Cable companies agreed to a local
franchise; it would be unfair to let them out of those
voluntary agreements.
While local franchises are voluntary agreements, it seems
unfair to impose different rules on similarly situated
companies. Local franchise agreements were negotiated before
the telecommunications companies became a significant
competitive threat. The formidable threat of Verizon or AT&T
surely changes the landscape upon which the original franchise
was based. The authors and committee may wish to consider
allowing cable operators to seek a state franchise, and upon
receipt abrogate their existing local franchise, once the
competitive threat of Verizon or AT&T is imminent. However, a
consequence of shifting to a state franchise is that the local
franchise requirement to offer service is no longer operative.
In extreme circumstances this could lead to a cable operator
discontinuing the offering of service to "unprofitable"
neighborhoods. The authors and committee may also wish to
consider making any discontinuance of the offering of service
subject to prior approval by the franchising authority.
7.Privacy -- The major telecommunications companies have
admitted to sharing customer information with federal
authorities without a warrant, raising privacy concerns.
Heightening those concerns are very recent press reports that
AT&T will keep track of their video customers' viewing habits
and that those customer records are business records owned by
AT&T.
California law bars cable companies from providing any person
with any individually identifiable information regarding its
subscribers, including television viewing habits, without the
subscriber's express written consent. Cable companies may
only retain subscriber information to the extent reasonably
necessary for billing purposes and other business practices.
A cable company may compile and distribute a list containing
the names and addresses of its subscribers if the list
contains no other individually identifiable information and if
subscribers are afforded the right to opt out . Cable companies
may not make individual subscriber information available to
government agencies in the absence of legal compulsion.
(Section 637.5 of the Penal Code) At a minimum, to establish a
level playing field, as well as to protect video customer
privacy rights, the authors and committee may wish to consider
making any holder of a state video franchise subject to
existing cable television privacy laws. There may be
additional privacy issues regarding whether opt-out or opt-in
is the more appropriate default and whether more stringent
federal law dealing with the collection of data applies to
cable companies but not telephone companies providing video
service.
8.Customer service standards -- California established minimum
state-wide cable customer service standards more than ten
years ago. This bill makes those state standards, as well as
existing federal standards, a part of the state franchise. The
penalties for a material breech of those standards are low,
having been capped in the original statute and never updated.
For example, the maximum penalty for a material breech is
$200/day, hardly enough to be a deterrent. The authors and
committee may wish to consider updating the penalties to a
meaningful amount and to eliminate the local authority to
establish lower penalties.
9.Public, Educational and Governmental Access/Institutional
Networks -- Federal law authorizes cable franchisors to
require channel capacity to be set aside for PEG use. While
federal law does not define PEG use, the legislative history
suggests that PEG channels were intended to be "the video
equivalent of the speaker's soapbox or the electronic parallel
to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals
who generally have not had access to the electronic media with
the opportunity to become sources of information in the
electronic marketplace of ideas. PEG channels also contribute
to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the
home and by showing the public local government at work."<3>
Federal law also authorizes additional fees to pay for the
capital cost of supporting PEG activities. Some local
franchisors have negotiated for institutional communications
networks (I-net) as part of the franchise negotiations. This
bill establishes a minimum number of PEG channels for the
state franchisees equivalent to the number of PEG channels
carried by the incumbent cable operator. If the cable
operator has no PEG channels then the local government can
request up to three. This bill also permits local entities to
establish an additional fee of up to 1% to fund PEG capital
costs.
Local governments raise concerns that the bill will reduce PEG
funding and I-net support. In some cases this is true. While
many cities impose no additional PEG funding, some cities do
at a level greater than 1%. Other take-aways occur if cable
operators are allowed to abrogate their local franchises.
Local governments have been creative in negotiating for
PEG/I-net services. But once the local franchises lapse,
either through abrogation or the lapse of the term, this bill
does not provide local government with any room to negotiate
to keep their deals.
This bill also does not provide for minimum funding of PEG
capital costs. The bill does require the state franchisee to
set aside a channel for state public affairs programming.
This bill does create a level playing field with regard to the
PEG obligation because the same obligation applies to every
franchisee. The unresolved questions are whether the state
should establish a minimum level of PEG funding, whether
existing PEG/I-net obligations of cable operators should
remain through the end of the local franchise irrespective of
abrogation, and whether local governments and video/cable
operators should be permitted to negotiate their PEG/I-net
agreements.
10. Bonding -- Because the grant
of a franchise authorizes the cable company to construct in
---------------------------
<3> H.R. Rep. No.98-934, at 30 (1984), reprinted in
Telecommunications: The Governmental Role in Managing the
Connected Community by Paul Valle-Riestra (2002), p.183.)
the public right of way, local governments have typically
required the cable company to post a bond to ensure that the
construction is done safely and completely, and that plant is
not abandoned. The authors and committee may wish to consider
whether to require the state franchising authority to develop
similar bonding requirements.
11. Peace, at Last? -- Cable
franchising reform is the subject of federal legislation
moving in both houses. Local governments are fighting with
telephone companies over whether the telephone companies must
first obtain a local franchise before building video networks
and offering video service. This bill represents an effort by
the authors to achieve some consensus around this contentious
issue. It would be bad faith to go through the exhausting
effort of negotiating this bill, only to have it undercut or
challenged in another venue.
12. Technical Amendments -- The
author suggests the following technical amendments:
Page 5, line 22, change "Franchising entity" to "Local
franchising entity"
Page 7, line 6, change "Franchising entity" to "Local
franchising entity"
Page 8, line 38: strike "(e)" and replace with "(d)".
Counsel: this will put it back as it was in the
prior version. The change should not have been
requested.
Page 11, lines 27, 28, 29 and 30: strike in their
entirety. Line 31: strike "local entity to the
holder of a state franchise."
Page 21, lines 11 and 12: remove the strike out - so
the sentence again contains the words: "as required
by Section 541 (a) (3) of Title 47 of the United
States Code". As above, this strike out request
should not have been submitted.
Page 28, line 23: delete "by the franchising
authority
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (77-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (12-0)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(10-0)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Authors
Support:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Academic Uprise | Developmental | New Beginnings |
| Actiontec | Disabilities Service | Academy |
|Electronics, Inc. | Organization, | New Economics For |
| African American | Inc. | Women |
|Business Council | Disabled Sports USA - | Novato Chamber of |
| African American | FAR WEST | Commerce |
|Historical and | Dunham, Sarah - | OASIS |
| Cultural | Career Counselor, | Observer Newspaper |
|Museum | University of | Ocean Park Community |
| Alcatel | California, Berkeley | Center |
| Alliance for | Edmund G. Pat Brown | Paint Your Heart |
|Community Media | Institute of | Out, Inc. |
| American Consumer | Public Affairs | Pasadena Chamber of |
|Institute | El Centro de Amistad | Commerce |
|American Federation | El Concilio del | Pets Are Wonderful - |
|of State, | Conduado de Ventura | LA |
| County and | El Granito Foundation | Pittsburg Chamber of |
| Municipal Employees | Elder Help of San | Commerce |
| American G.I. Forum | Diego | Plaza Development |
| American Heart | Elizabeth Peterson | Partners, LLC |
| Association | Group, Inc. | Polaris Group |
| Anaheim Chamber of | Federal Technology | Poway Chamber of |
| Commerce | Center | Commerce |
| Arriba Juntos | Fiber-to-the-Home | Powers, Robert |
| Asian Americans for | Council | President Health |
| Community | Filipino American | Corp. |
| Involvement | Chamber of | Printing Consultants |
| Asian American | Commerce of | Project Amiga |
|Resource Center | Solano County | Rainbow/PUSH |
| Asian Business | Fontana Herald News | Coalition |
| Association | Fresno Center for New | RBD Communications |
| Asian Business | Americans | Rio Hondo Boys and |
| Council | Friends Unlimited | Girls Club |
| Asian Pacific | Gardena Valley | RJ Martin Insurance |
| American Legal | Chamber of | Agency |
| Center | Commerce | Roberts Family |
| of Southern | Gateway Chambers | Development |
| California | Alliance - LA | Center |
| Asian Pacific | Global Energy & | RSVP Volunteers |
| Islander American | Technology, Inc. | Sac. Black Chamber |
| Public Asian | Greater Huntington | of Commerce |
| American Resource | Park Area Chamber of | Sac. County |
| Center | Commerce | Taxpayers League |
| Affairs Association | Greater Los Angeles | San Anselmo Chamber |
| Community | African | of Commerce |
| Education | American Chamber | San Bernardino |
| Foundation | of Commerce | Community College |
| Asians for Corporate | Greenlining Institute | District |
| and | Habitat for Humanity, | San Diego East |
| Community | Fresno County | County Chamber of |
| Action | Halsa Inc. | Commerce |
| AT&T California | Hammerhead Systems | San Fracisco Chamber |
| Bakersfield Homeless | Inc. | of Commerce |
| Center | Harbor City/Harbor | San Joaquin Valley |
| Bank of the West | Gateway Chamber of | Black Chamber |
| Bay Area Council | Commerce | of Commerce |
| Beaumont Chamber of | Hartnell College | San Jose Silicon |
| Commerce | Henry Mayo Newhall | Valley Chamber of |
| Black Business | Memorial Health | Commerce |
| Association | Foundation | Santa Ana Chamber of |
| Black Women | Hispanic Association | Commerce |
| Organized for | of | Santa Ana Education |
| Political | Communication | Foundation |
| Action | Employees of | Santa Monica Chamber |
| Boys and Girls Club | AT&T | of |
| of Auburn | Hispanic Chamber of | Commerce |
| Boys and Girls Club | Commerce of | Self-Help For the |
| of Fontana | Contra Costa | Elderly |
| Breakthru | County | Sempra Energy |
| Brotherhood Crusade | Hispanic Chamber of | Senior Community |
| Burton, Kevin | Commerce of | Centers |
| Fruitvale School | Marin | Serving God's People |
| District | Hispanic Chamber of | Shasta County Board |
| Trustee | Commerce of | of Supervisors- |
| Cabrillo Economic | Orange County | Patricia Clarke, |
| Development | Hispanic Chamber of | District 5 |
| Corporation | Commerce of | Social Concerns of |
| CA Black Chamber of | Stanislaus | Southern CA |
| Commerce | County | |
| CA Building Trades | | |
|Council | | Southeast Asian |
| CA Business | Hollywood Chamber of | Community Center |
| Roundtable | Commerce | State Assn. of |
| Support (continued): | Huntington Park | Electrical Workers |
| | Chamber of | State Building and |
| CA Cable & Telco. | Commerce | Construction |
| Assn. | Information | Trades Council |
| CA Chamber of |Technology Consortium | of California |
| Commerce | Inland Action, Inc. | Suscol Intertribal |
| CA Commission on | Inland Empire African | Council |
| APIA Affairs | American Chamber of | Telamon |
| CA Consumers United | Commerce | Telecommunications |
| CA Hispanic Assn. | Intel | Industry Assn. |
|on Corp. | International | Thoma Electric |
| |Brotherhood of | Thousand |
|Responsibility | Electrical | Oaks-Westlake |
| CA Hispanic Chamber |Workers | Village |
| of Commerce | Irvine Chamber of | Regional |
| California Labor | Commerce | Chamber |
| Federation | Irvine Valley College | Torrance Area |
| California Small | Foundation | Chamber of |
| Business Assn. | ITC | Commerce |
| CA State Conference | Joanne David on | TriNet |
| of the NAACP | behalf of Haven | Communications, Inc. |
| CSU, Chico, Center | Hills | Tri-Valley Business |
| for Economic | Kern County Taxpayers | Council |
| Development | Association | Tulare County League |
| CSU, Sacramento, | Korean Health, | of Mexican- |
| College of | Education, | American Women |
| Business | Information & | United Way of Butte |
| Administration | Research Center | and Glenn |
| CA for Video & | La Casa de San | Counties |
|Technology Choice | Gabriel Community | United Way of |
| Camarillo Health | Center | Northern CA |
| Care District | Lao Khmu Association | United Way of San |
| Campbell Union High | Latino Community | Joaquin |
| School Dist. | Roundtable, | County |
| Capitol Claims | Stanislaus | USC, Annenberg |
| Services | County | School for |
| Castle and Cooke | Latino Council of | Communication |
| Center for | Marin | Ventura County |
| Accessible | Latino Journal | Economic |
| Technology | League of United | Development |
| Center for Fathers | Latin American | Association |
| and Families | Citizens | Ventura County |
| Central American | Lighthouse Computer | Taxpayers Assn. |
| Resource Center | Group | Verizon |
| Central City | Los Angeles Area | Vietnamese Community |
| Association of LA | Chamber of | of Pomona |
| Central Labor | Commerce | Valley |
| Council of Fresno, | Los Angeles Urban | Video Access |
| Madera, Tulare & | League | Alliance |
| Kings Counties | Materus | Vital Link |
| Charles Industries, | McMillin Homes | Volunteers of |
| Ltd. | Mexican American | America of Southwest |
| CHARO Community | Opportunity | |
| Development Chico | Foundation | California |
| Economic Planning | Microsoft Corporation | Watts/Century Latino |
| Corp. | | Organization |
| Chris Bernal Tax | Milpitas Chamber of | West Fresno |
| Services | Commerce | Healthcare Coalition |
| Citizens Against | Minerva Networks, | |
| Regulatory Excess | Inc. | Western Region |
| City of Firebaugh | NAACP - Fresno Branch | Puerto Rican |
| Colton Chamber of | NAACP - Hercules, | Council |
| Commerce | Pinole, & Rodeo | Westside Council of |
| CWA, District 9 | NAACP - Lake Elsinore | Chambers of |
| CWA, Local 9333 | Branch | Commerce |
| CWA, Local 9404 | NAACP - Los Angeles | Women's Council of |
| CWA, Local 9408 | NAACP - Monterey | Realtors |
| CWA, Local 9412 | Peninsula Branch | World Institute On |
| CWA, Local 9415 | NAACP - San Gabriel | Disability |
| CWA, Local 9416 | Valley Branch | Youth Violence |
| CWA, Local 9417 | NAACP - Vallejo | Prevention Council |
| CWA, Local 9421 | Branch | of Shasta |
| CWA, Local 9423 | National Council on | County |
| Computer | Aging | Yuba Sutter Economic |
| Technologies Program | National | Development |
| Community Union, | Tax-Limitation | Corporation |
| Inc. | Committee | Several |
| Congress of | National Taxpayers |individuals |
| California Seniors | Union | |
| Consumers Federation | Networking Everyone | |
| of California | w/ Technology | |
| Consumers First Inc. | Society for the Blind | |
| Create-N-Animate | South Bay Latino | |
| Culver City Chamber | Chamber of | |
| of Commerce | Commerce | |
| Deaf & Hard of | | |
| Hearing Svc. Center | | |
| Delano Union | | |
| Elementary School | | |
| District Board | | |
| of Trustees | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|AARP |City of La Mirada |City of Santa Fe |
|Adelphia |City of La Palma |Springs |
|Communications |City of La Quinta |City of Santa Maria |
|Artelias S. Guyton & |City of La Verne |City of Santa Monica |
|Associates |City of Lafayette |City of Santa Rosa |
|Business Women for |City of Laguna Hills |City of Saratoga |
|the Environment |City of Laguna Niguel |City of Sausalito |
|California Contract |City of Lake Forest |City of Scotts Valley |
|Cities Association |City of Lakeport |City of Seal Beach |
|California Library |City of Lakewood |City of Seaside |
|Association |City of Larkspur |City of Sebastopol |
|California State |City of Lathrop |City of Selma |
|Association of |City of Laverne |City of Sierra Madre |
| Counties |City of Lawndale |City of Simi Valley |
|CA State University , |City of Lemon Grove |City of Solana Beach |
|Monterey Bay, |City of Lincoln |City of Soledad |
| Chief |City of Live Oak |City of Sonoma |
|Information Officer |City of Livermore |City of South Gate |
|Calaveras County |City of Lodi |City of South Lake |
|Community |City of Lomita |Tahoe |
| Television |City of Lompoc |City of South San |
|Charter |City of Long Beach |Francisco |
|Communications, LLC |City of Lynwood |City of Stanton |
|Charter |City of Manhattan |City of Stockton |
|Communications - |Beach |City of Suisun City |
|Inland |City of Manteca |City of Sunnyvale |
| Empire |City of Martinez |City of Susanville |
|City of Alameda |City of Maywood |City of Temple |
|City of Alhambra |City of Menlo Park |City of Thousand Oaks |
|City of Antioch |City of Merced |City of Torrance |
|City of Arcadia |City of Mill Valley |City of Tracy |
|City of Arcata |City of Millbrae |City of Tustin |
|City of Arroyo |City of Mission Viejo |City of Upland |
|City of Azusa |City of Modesto |City of Vacaville |
|City of Bakersfield |City of Monrovia |City of Ventura |
|City of Banning |City of Monterey |City of Vernon |
|City of Beaumont |City of Monterey Park |City of Victorville |
|City of Bellflower |City of Moorpark |City of Visalia |
|City of Belmont |City of Moreno Valley |City of Vista |
|City of Benicia |City of Morro Bay |City of Walnut |
|City of Berkeley |City of Mountain View |City of Walnut Creek |
|City of Beverly Hills |City of Mt. Shasta |City of West Covina |
|City of Blue Lake |City of Murrieta |City of West |
|City of Bradbury |City of Nevada |Hollywood |
|City of Brea |City of Norwalk |City of West |
|City of Brentwood |City of Novato |Sacramento |
|City of Buena Park |City of Oakland |City of Whittier |
|City of Burbank |City of Oceanside |City of Woodland |
|City of Calabasas |City of Ontario |City of Yreka |
|City of Calistoga |City of Orange |City of Yuba City |
|City of Camarillo |City of Pacific Grove |City of Yucaipa |
|City of Campbell |City of Pacifica |City of Yucca Valley |
|City of Capitola |City of Palm Desert |City/County Assn. of |
|City of Carlsbad |City of Palmdale |Governments of |
|City of Carpinteria |City of Palo Alto | San Mateo County |
|City of Carson |City of Palos Verdes |City/County of San |
|City of Ceres |Estates |Francisco |
|City of Cerritos | |Community Media |
|City of Chico | |Access Partnership |
|City of Chino |City of La Canada |Contra Costa County |
|City of Chino Hills |Flintridge |County of Los Angeles |
|City of Claremont |City of La Mesa |County of Monterey |
|City of Clayton |City of Paramount |County of Nevada |
|City of Cloverdale |City of Pasadena | |
|City of Clovis |City of Patterson | |
|City of Colusa |City of Petaluma |Foundation for |
|City of Commerce |City of Pinole |Taxpayers and |
|Oppose (continued): |City of Pismo Beach | Consumer Rights |
| |City of Pittsburg |Hispanic National Bar |
|City of Compton |City of Pleasant Hill |Association |
|City of Concord |City of Pomona |Kern County Board of |
|City of Coronado |City of Porterville |Supervisors |
|City of Costa Mesa |City of Poway |Las Virgenes-Malibu |
|City of Cotati |City of Rancho Cordova |Council of |
|City of Covina |City of Rancho | Governments |
|City of Culver City |Cucamonga |League of CA Cities |
|City of Cupertino |City of Rancho Mirage |League of CA Cities |
|City of Cypress |City of Rancho Palos |LA Division |
|City of Daly City |Verdes |League of CA Cities, |
|City of Davis |City of Red Bluff |City of Morro |
|City of Del Mar |City of Redding | Bay |
|City of Diamond Bar |City of Redlands |League of Women |
|City of Downey |City of Redondo Beach |Voters |
|City of Duarte |City of Redwood City |Livermore City |
|City of El Cajon |City of Rohnert Park |Council |
|City of El Cerrito |City of Rolling Hills |Jim Madaffer, |
|City of El Dorado |Estates |Councilmember |
|Hills |City of Rosemead |Marin |
|City of El Segundo |City of Roseville |Telecommunications |
|City of Elk Grove |City of Sacramento |Agency |
|City of Emeryville |City of Salinas |Marin County Board of |
|City of Encinitas |City of San Bernardino |Supervisors |
|City of Escondido |City of San Clemente |Mayors and Council |
|City of Fairfax |City of San Diego |Members |
|City of Fairfield |City of San Dimas | Association of |
|City of Fillmore |City of San Jose |Sonoma County |
|City of Folsom |City of San Gabriel |Judith Mitchell, |
|City of Fontana |City of San Juan |Councilmember |
|City of Fort Bragg |Capistrano |Monterey County Board |
|City of Fortuna |City of San Leandro |of |
|City of Foster City |City of San Luis | Supervisors |
|City of Fountain |Obispo |Monterey County |
|Valley |City of San Marcos |Mayors' Assn. |
|City of Fremont |City of San Mateo |Public Access |
|City of Fresno |City of San Pablo |Television of |
|City of Garden Grove |City of San Rafael |Calaveras |
|City of Gardena |City of Santa Ana | County |
|City of Gilroy |City of Santa Barbara |Public Cable |
|City of Goleta |City of Santa Clara |Television Authority |
|City of Grover Beach |City of Santa Cruz |Gloryanna Rhodes, |
|City of Hawaiian |County of Sacramento |Mayor, City of |
|Gardens |County of San | Lathrop |
|City of Hercules |Bernardino |Rohnert Park City |
|City of Hollister |County of Santa |Council |
|City of Hughson |Barbara |Sac. County Board of |
|City of Huntington |County of Santa Cruz |Supervisors |
|Beach |El Dorado Hills |Sac. Metropolitan |
|City of Huntington |Community Svc Dist. |Cable Television |
|Park | | Commission |
|City of Imperial | |San Diego Association |
|Beach | |of |
|City of Industry | | Governments |
|City of Inglewood | |San Diego County |
|City of Irvine | |Board of |
|City of Irwindale | | Supervisors |
| | |San Mateo County |
| | |Telecommunica- |
| | | tions Authority |
| | |Santa Barbara Channel |
| | |Santa Clara County |
| | |Board of |
| | | Supervisors |
| | |Santa Rosa Community |
| | |Media Center |
| | |Sutter Medical Center |
| | |of Santa Rosa |
| | |Town of Apple Valley |
| | |Town of Corte Madera |
| | |Town of Fairfax |
| | |Town of Truckee |
| | |Town of Windsor |
| | |Urban Counties Caucus |
| | |Ventura Council of |
| | |Governments |
| | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Chinn
AB 2987 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 29, 2006