[CalFiber] Notes from Mar 12 Friday call

Christopher Mitchell christopher at ilsr.org
Mon Mar 22 19:18:26 PDT 2021


Right, that is what I was thinking.

You all were talking about electioneering whereas I was getting confused
because I believe any communication with the public about a referendum is
treated as grassroots lobbying.

Christopher Mitchell
Director, Community Broadband Networks
Institute for Local Self-Reliance

MuniNetworks.org <http://www.muninetworks.org/>
@communitynets
612-545-5185


On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:38 PM Hayley Tsukayama <hayleyt at eff.org> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Just sharing the ballot measure material I have on hand, which mirrors
> what Chris Mitchell had dropped in chat:
>
>
>
> -
> https://bolderadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Rules_of_the_Game_paywall.pdf
> specifically pp 14 and 15
>
>                 Specifically: “While ballot measures, such as bond
> measures, ballot initiatives, constitutional amendments, and referenda, are
> voted on at the ballot box, federal tax law treats them as legislation.
> Therefore, it is lobbying limits that apply, not the electioneering
> prohibition.”
>
>
>
>    - And also, what Chris dropped in:
>    https://bolderadvocacy.org/resource-library/tools-for-effective-advocacy/toolkits/ballot-measures-toolkit/501c3-public-charities-and-ballot-measures/
>
>
>
> *From: *CalFiber <calfiber-bounces+hayleyt=eff.org at lists.eff.org> on
> behalf of Tracy Rosenberg <tracy at media-alliance.org>
> *Date: *Friday, March 19, 2021 at 4:05 PM
> *To: *Stephen Blum <steveblum at tellusventure.com>
> *Cc: *"calfiber at lists.eff.org" <calfiber at lists.eff.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CalFiber] Notes from Mar 12 Friday call
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> With apologies for posting when I rarely attend meetings (the nerve) :)
>
>
>
> I'm inclined to agree with Steve re: ministerial administration.
>
>
>
> On the Caballero franchising bill: Some language was submitted to
> Caballero's office today re: requiring HD transmission for PEG programming
> in the context of SB 28. No word yet on whether they'll incorporate, but if
> they do, this would be a good thing and support from this group would be
> great. Among other issues, HD downgraded to SB renders closed captioning
> unreadable which is a big deal for the hearing-impaired and even more so in
> COVID times. And generally, public interest content should not be subject
> to degraded delivery.
>
>
>
> The last wording on SB 28l that I saw did specifically grant authority
> with regard to a cableco's failure to deliver on broadband including
> public hearings and investigations up to audits if the cableco accepts a
> broadband grant from the commission. What it doesn't do is provide the same
> level of oversight regarding the provision of cable services themselves.
> But the universe of franchisees that offer one service and not the other,
> or who would decline to participate in a broadband grant program of the
> scale that is looking likely, may be fairly small,.
>
>
>
> - Tracy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:04 PM Stephen Blum <steveblum at tellusventure.com>
> wrote:
>
> The problem with making the Department of Technology the grant making (or
> in any way a broadband development) agency is that IT people are consumers
> of broadband, not producers. It would be like putting bus drivers in charge
> of Caltrans. They'll get the resources they need, because that's what
> they're paid to do, but they have no experience in or mandate to provide
> services to the public. Last year's so called broadband plan is Exhibit A:
> they relied on cable and other lobbyists to write it for them. What we got
> was largely useless.
>
>
>
> Caltrans or DWR, despite their sins, would be a better choice. They build
> public facing infrastructure for a living. But I think the best way is to
> make it a purely financial resource, like other bonds, and let financial
> people run it ministerially for local policy makers.
>
>
> Steve Blum
> Tellus Venture Associates
> U.S. +1-831-582-0700
> N.Z. +64-21-116-0002
> steveblum at tellusventure.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:23 PM Ernesto Falcon <ernesto at eff.org> wrote:
>
> Side note, I wrote this piece summarizing the various broadband pieces
> moving in Sacramento this year
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/sacramento-might-be-undergoing-broadband-policy-reboot
>
>
>
>    1. Updates from Sacramento (AB 14/SB 4 discussion)
>
>
>
> *The bills are coming closer together and CAC, Sen. Gonzalez, and the
> Governor’s team will have to hash out the final edges of an agreement. Once
> the two bills are essentially merged, support should be given to both
> bills. *
>
>
>
>    1. Updates from DC (House broadband infrastructure package), also
>    related a bipartisan Senate endorsement of a 100/100 mbps standard for
>    broadband (federal definition is 25/3) including Joe Manchin who is often
>    seen as the hardest to pin down Senator on the Democratic side
>    https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2C769043-69ED-426B-B30A-57981A4BA333).
>
>
>
>
> *Legislation will be heading towards the larger infrastructure effort and
> will overlap a lot with the work we’re doing here in Sacramento. Also the
> federal standard will likely be updated this year by Biden’s new FCC Chair,
> there is a lot of pushing for 100/100 low latency as the standard. *
>
>
> * One thing to flag about the way the Democrats are going to approach
> passing a massive infrastructure bill if they receive no GOP support is the
> means to bypass the Senate filibuster prohibits policy, which means this
> might become a giant pot of broadband money given to the Executive branch
> who will decide the standards and goals of the program. *
>
>
>
>    1. Updates on AB 34 (ballot initiative on broadband)
>
>
>
> *This bill still hasn’t been made public but its basically looking like a
> very good bill based on initial feedback. Essentially the state would take
> on $8 billion in debt to finance a grant program that will favor open
> access fiber. Would use the Department of Technology as the grant making
> agency, which is concerning in that they have no experience in that space,
> and likely was an ask from cable who want to avoid having the regulator in
> charge of making these decisions. *
>
>
>
>    1. Anything else?
>
>
>
> *Caballero franchise bill – EFF will have a research memo published soon
> talking about local franchise power for major cities and how it has
> benefited New York City. The same will be true for LA, SF, Oakland and
> other major CA cities. However, concerns were raised about the bargaining
> power of rural townships is much more limited and they probably need the
> state to retain authority over the franchising both from a resources and a
> negotiating power perspective. Sean McLaughlin noted that the CPUC doesn’t
> have clear authority to audit and regulate franchise holders who fail to
> meet the requirements of the license to sell broadband in California. *
>
>
>
> *Line Extension Program – CPUC has been doing some rethinking about it,
> Ernesto suggested seeing if there is room to remake the program to assist
> citizens connect to their own fiber. Chris Mitchell did a long interview on
> this topic
> (https://muninetworks.org/content/expanding-high-speed-internet-access-america-through-fiber-condominiums
> <https://muninetworks.org/content/expanding-high-speed-internet-access-america-through-fiber-condominiums>).
> If there are any changes to the program, it’ll come from the Governor’s
> office into the SB 4 discussion.*
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ernesto Omar Falcon
>
> Senior Legislative Counsel
>
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>
> Office: 415 436 9333 ext. 182
>
> Cell: 202 716 0770
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CalFiber mailing list
> CalFiber at lists.eff.org
> https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/calfiber
>
> _______________________________________________
> CalFiber mailing list
> CalFiber at lists.eff.org
> https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/calfiber
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tracy Rosenberg
> Executive Director
> Media Alliance
>
> 2830 20th Street Suite 201
>
> San Francisco, CA 94110
> www.media-alliance.org
> 415-746-9475
> 510-684-6853 Cell
>
> Encrypted email at tracy.rosenberg at protonmail.com
>
> Text via Signal
>
>
>
> -
> _______________________________________________
> CalFiber mailing list
> CalFiber at lists.eff.org
> https://lists.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/calfiber
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/calfiber/attachments/20210322/87c5fd8c/attachment.html>


More information about the CalFiber mailing list