California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 2748 — Telecommunications: Digital Equity in Video Franchising Act of 2022.

Last action — In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, establishes a procedure for the issuance of state franchises for the provision of video service, defined to include video programming services, cable service, or open-video system service, administered by the Public Utilities Commission. The act provides that the holder of a state franchise is not a public utility as a result of providing video services and does not provide the commission with authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of video service except as explicitly set forth in the act. The act establishes a state franchise fee to be remitted to a local jurisdiction based on the franchiseholder's gross revenues, as defined, derived from the provision of cable or video service within that jurisdiction. The act prohibits a cable operator or video service provider that has been granted a state franchise from discriminating against, or denying access to service to, any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides. The act limits the maximum fine that could be assessed for a violation of the access requirement. This bill would revise and recast the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 to, among other things, (1) rename the act as the Digital Equity in Video Franchising Act of 2022, (2) revise the definition of "gross revenue" for purposes of calculating the franchise fee for a local jurisdiction, (3) require a franchise applicant to submit a description of the households that are known to be unserved in the video service area footprint that is proposed by the applicant, (4) establish the policy of the state that subscribers and potential subscribers of a state video franchiseholder should benefit from equal access, as defined, to service within the service area and prohibit a cable operator or video service provider that has been granted a state franchise from denying equal access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides, and (5) repeal the maximum amount of fine that could be assessed for a violation of the equal access requirement.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  2. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E., U. & C.

  3. Referred to Com. on E., U. & C.

  4. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  5. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 48. Noes 18. Page 4948.)

  6. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  7. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 3.) (May 19).

  8. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 4736.)

  9. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

  10. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Read second time and amended.

  13. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 3.) (April 27).

  14. Referred to Com. on C. & C.

  15. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  16. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Holden · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 12 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Holden

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 2748 Holden Assembly Third Reading

Passed 48 Yea · 18 Nay · 12 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 23808
Democratic 25104
Republican 0900
Total 4818012
% of votes cast 62%23%0%15%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Salas — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Villapudua — Not Voting
Gray — Not Voting
Cooley — Not Voting
Mayes — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Cooper — Not Voting
Daly — Not Voting
Levine — Yea
Medina — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Smith — Nay
Voepel — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Cunningham — Nay
Kiley — Nay
Mathis — Nay
O'Donnell — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Not Voting
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Not Voting
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Nay
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Not Voting
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Nay
Choi, Steven S. Republican Nay
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Flora, Heath Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Nay
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 3 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5101
Democratic 7000
Republican 0200
Total 12301
% of votes cast 75%19%0%6%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Vince Fong — Nay
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 10 Yea · 3 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 5000
Unaffiliated 5100
Republican 0200
Total 10300
% of votes cast 77%23%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
Holden — Yea
Low — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights technology
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2748 do?
Existing law, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, establishes a procedure for the issuance of state franchises for the provision of video service, defined to include video programming services, cable service, or open-video system service, administered by the Public Utilities Commission. The act provides that the holder of a state franchise is not a public utility as a result of providing video services and does not provide the commission with authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of video service except as explicitly set forth in the act. The act establishes a state franchise fee to be remitted to a local jurisdiction based on the franchiseholder's gross revenues, as defined, derived from the provision of cable or video service within that jurisdiction. The act prohibits a cable operator or video service provider that has been granted a state franchise from discriminating against, or denying access to service to, any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides. The act limits the maximum fine that could be assessed for a violation of the access requirement. This bill would revise and recast the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 to, among other things, (1) rename the act as the Digital Equity in Video Franchising Act of 2022, (2) revise the definition of "gross revenue" for purposes of calculating the franchise fee for a local jurisdiction, (3) require a franchise applicant to submit a description of the households that are known to be unserved in the video service area footprint that is proposed by the applicant, (4) establish the policy of the state that subscribers and potential subscribers of a state video franchiseholder should benefit from equal access, as defined, to service within the service area and prohibit a cable operator or video service provider that has been granted a state franchise from denying equal access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides, and (5) repeal the maximum amount of fine that could be assessed for a violation of the equal access requirement.
Who sponsors AB 2748?
AB 2748 is sponsored by Holden.
What is the current status of AB 2748?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 2748?
Track AB 2748 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2748

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2748

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →