BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2690
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 3, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND COMMERCE
Steven Bradford, Chair
AB 2690 (De La Torre) - As Amended: April 28, 2010
SUBJECT : Telephone corporations: call centers.
SUMMARY : Requires telephone corporations to post information on
their Internet web sites that identifies the location of each
call center that receives calls from California-based customers,
and the number of calls received by each call center from the
telephone corporation's California customers.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
with regulatory authority over public utilities.
2)Establishes requirements for equipment, practices, and
facilities for public utilities.
3)Establishes the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition
Act (DIVCA) to open broadband and video service markets by
authorizing the issuance of state video service franchises to
cable and telephone corporations.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is
to return jobs to California and protect consumers' confidential
information. The author notes that consumers in our
21st-century high-tech economy increasingly use the telephone or
Internet to buy goods and services and seek customer service.
The author states, "Most telephone and Internet-based customer
service transactions are provided by customer service or sales
representatives located in centralized call centers. In the
U.S. there are millions of workers in these call centers.
However, these numbers are changing fast and for the worse."
1) Background: Four years ago, the Legislature approved DIVCA
under AB 2987 (Nunez/Levine), Chapter 700, Statutes of 2006,
which created a state franchising process for companies
providing competitive video services in California. The CPUC
issued its rules for new applications in February 2008. Since
AB 2690
Page 2
then, at least two companies, Verizon and AT&T, have both
applied for and received a state-issued franchise.
Since the passage of DIVCA, concerns have been raised that the
telecommunications companies that entered the video service
sector have actually cut jobs in California, despite promises of
job creation when DIVCA was being debated in the Legislature.
Senator Padilla and Assemblymember Fuentes sent a letter to the
CPUC in October 2009 requesting that the CPUC commence an
inquiry into job cuts, out-of-state job transfers, and layoffs
by Verizon and AT&T, noting that between August 2008 and August
2009 these companies cut more than 2,000 jobs. It was presumed
that many of these cuts were due to the relocation of call
centers outside the state or country, although this has not been
substantiated and there is ongoing debate about whether
employment reporting requirements under DIVCA are being met.
2) Opposition : Telecommunications companies are concerned that
this bill may not help consumers and that the intent of the bill
is punitive. They note that computer or software companies,
banks, credit card issuers, insurance companies and large
retailers all have customer call centers and do not have to
report the information required by this bill on their Internet
web site.
In addition, it is unclear what value this information provides.
The telephone corporations that operate nationally and
internationally note that customer calls are typically routed to
the first call center that is the subject-matter expert in the
reason for the call, regardless of location. They state that
they do not have any evidence that callers ask the call center
where they are located or whether the caller would prefer a
caller that is located in California. They believe that a
caller's primary concern is getting the assistance they need to
address their reason for calling. Thus, customers may never use
the information this bill would require them to post on their
Internet web sites.
3) Where's the enforcement : This bill does not require the
CPUC to enforce the provisions and ensure the telephone
corporations include this information on their Internet web
sites. As such, it is unclear if there would be any
consequences for a telephone corporation to either bury this
information in a difficult to access area, or obfuscate or
AB 2690
Page 3
misrepresent the information to make it not very useful to the
average consumer.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Labor Federation
Central Labor Council, Kern, Inyo & Mono Counties
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Sponsor)
Communications Workers of America, Local 9000
Communications Workers of America, Local 9404
Communications Workers of America, Local 9408
Communications Workers of America, Local 9410
Communications Workers of America, Local 9412
Communications Workers of America, Local 9415
Communications Workers of America, Local 9416
Communications Workers of America, Local 9421
Communications Workers of America, Local 9423
Communications Workers of America, Local 9503
Communications Workers of America, Local 9505
Communications Workers of America, Local 9573
Communications Workers of America, Local 9586
Communications Workers of America, Local 9588
Sacramento Central Labor Council AFL-CIO
UPTE-CWA, Local 9119
Opposition
AT&T
CalCom
California Association of Competitive Telecommunications
Companies (CALTEL)
California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber)
California's Independent Telephone Companies (CITC)
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Frontier Communications
SureWest
Verizon
Verizon Wireless
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / U. & C. / (916) 319-2083