Telecommunications: universal service.
Summary
(1) Existing law, the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, establishes a program of cooperative federalism for the regulation of telecommunications to attain the goal of local competition, while implementing specific, predictable, and sufficient federal and state mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service, consistent with certain universal service principles. The universal service principles include the principle that consumers in all regions of the nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas. Existing law authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to supervise and regulate every public utility in the state, including telephone corporations, and to fix just and reasonable rates and charges for the public utility. Existing law establishes the state's universal service funds, including the California High-Cost Fund-A Administrative Committee Fund (CHCF-A) and the California High-Cost Fund-B Administrative Committee Fund (CHCF-B) , in the State Treasury, and provides that moneys in each of the state's universal service funds are the proceeds of rates and are held in trust for the benefit of ratepayers and to compensate telephone corporations for their costs of providing universal service. Moneys in the funds may only be expended to accomplish specified telecommunications universal service programs, upon appropriation in the annual Budget Act or upon supplemental appropriation. Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires the commission to develop, implement, and maintain a suitable program to establish a fair and equitable local rate structure aided by universal service rate support to small independent telephone corporations that serve rural areas and are subject to rate-of-return regulation by the commission (the CHCF-A program) . Existing law, until January 1, 2012, requires the commission to develop, implement, and maintain a suitable, competitively neutral, and broadbased program to establish a fair and equitable local rate support structure aided by universal service rate support to telephone corporations serving areas where the cost of providing services exceeds rates charged by providers, as determined by the commission (the CHCF-B program) . This bill would extend the repeal date of the CHCF-A and CHCF-B program requirements until January 1, 2015. (2) This bill would require the commission to require interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers to collect and remit surcharges on their California intrastate revenues in support of the universal service funds. The bill would make this requirement operative only if AB 841 is not enacted or fails to become effective on or before January 1, 2012. (3) Under existing law, a violation of the Public Utilities Act or an order or direction of the commission is a crime. Because the program that is extended under the provisions of this bill is within the act and a decision or order of the commission implements the program requirements, a violation of these provisions would impose a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime. (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2010
Committee Review
Aug 2011
Senate Passage
Jun 2011
Assembly Passage
Aug 2011
Signed into Law
Oct 2011
Introduced Dec 6, 2010
Signed Oct 9, 2011
Floor votes · Senate Jun 2, 2011 · Assembly Aug 29, 2011
How they voted
38–0
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 39
Jun 2, 2011
D
Democratic24
100% Yea
R
Republican15
93% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
27
Key actions
7
Committee
6
Amendments
3
Oct 9, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 30, 2011
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 2159.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 29, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (74-0-5)
assembly
Aug 29, 2011
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 26, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 25).
lower
Jul 13, 2011
Committee
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Jun 28, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 16, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on U. & C.
lower
Jun 2, 2011
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (38-0-1)
senate
May 27, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 1111.) (May 26).
upper
Apr 11, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 541.) (April 5).
upper
Jan 20, 2011
Committee
Referred to Com. on E., U., & C.
upper
Dec 6, 2010
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 3
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 3. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline