CPUC Urged to Revise State Broadband Program Proposal

The California Public Utilities Commission received much feedback from telecom companies, consumer advocates and local governments on possible changes to California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband infrastructure account rules. The CPUC received comments Monday on changes proposed June 7 to the state-funded last-mile program as part of a wider California broadband effort (see 2205250045). The CPUC adopted rules in April for a last-mile program using federal funding (see 2204210046).

Frontier Communications supports balancing "affordability concerns with the high costs of serving certain areas,” including a plan to make 10% extra funding available to California LifeLine participants and requiring participation in the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP), it said. But some changes to proposed rules “are needed to provide clarity and promote transparency, equity, and feasibility,” said Frontier in docket R.20-08-021. The CPUC’s plan “would impose numerous onerous requirements on challengers, including the requirement to produce billing statements containing detailed information from every subscriber in the proposed project area, which would be very difficult to comply with in the 21-day challenge period and could result in the unintended consequence of suppressing challenges for served locations.” Another proposed rule would give CPUC staff “broad ministerial discretion to rescind grants without sufficient due process or procedural protections for grant recipients,” it said.

The CPUC should “ensure maximum participation by well-qualified broadband providers and a reasonable process to validate applications,” said the California Cable and Telecommunications Association. The state should fund 100% of construction costs where service is at or below 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds, and at least 60% for areas with speeds between 10/1 and 25/3 Mbps, said CCTA. Proposed staff definitions of unserved areas and broadband map are too vague, CCTA said. “Reject proposed changes to the challenge process, including new unnecessarily burdensome billing statement requirements that violate customer privacy, and unlawful changes to the attestation that are inconsistent with the law and program goal.”

A proposed 100/20 Mbps eligibility requirement “properly considers that other technologies may provide broadband service equally as well as fiber or better in certain circumstances,” said Verizon. “Although Verizon supports the deployment of fiber,” preferring that technology “may dissuade providers from deploying other technologies that could more efficiently and effectively ensure broadband service throughout unserved areas and particularly where fiber is not feasible.”

Infrastructure account funds should go to areas “not addressed by federal programs,” said AT&T. That will “maximize the number of Californians who receive fiber-to-the-premises-enabled services or at least minimum speeds of 100/20 Mbps service,” it said. Provide up to 100% of cost based on need, including for projects that include some locations that have 25/3 Mbps or higher speeds, the carrier said. “Some areas may have relatively poor economics that are exacerbated in the current period of rising interest rates.”

LCB Communications and South Valley Internet disagreed with giving an extra 10% in support to area where existing communications facilities may be upgraded to deploy broadband. The proposal “clearly favors" ILECs, said the competitors: Instead give the additional 10% to networks that attach to the state's middle-mile network, which is in development. Also, the CPUC should require at least 1 Gbps symmetrical minimum speeds, with 100/20 Mbps as the default only if 1 Gbps is infeasible, they said.

A CPUC proposal to provide a baseline 40% match for areas between 10/1 and 25/3 Mbps “may risk leaving these areas underserved,” said GeoLinks, urging the CPUC to give at least a 60% match for all projects. The proposed definition for unserved is too narrow because it doesn't explicitly exclude areas with existing federal awards, the company said. Also, Geolinks complained that proposed challenge rules would restrict wireless providers more than wireline providers.

"The standard for challenging proposed CASF grants is far too onerous” and “likely to result in the retention of some projects that duplicate existing infrastructure and provide no benefits to consumers,” said CalTel and other small LECs. “Some historical CASF projects have veered into territories that are already adequately served by broadband-capable facilities, and the Commission should not allow these projects to continue just because potential challengers cannot reasonably incur the burdens or navigate the rigorous, technical details that would be required to document a 'challenge' to a CASF proposal.”

Consumer groups urged more attention to low-income communities and people of color. Require grantees to provide a low-income plan of at most $15 monthly, with a fixed price for five years, and which provides 100/20 Mbps speeds and at most 50 milliseconds latency with no data caps, said the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office: Prioritize funding in unserved and underserved areas in environmental and social justice communities, which are predominately communities of color or low-income.

The CPUC “should consider adding program incentives that encourage projects in historically redlined communities,” said Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said in a joint filing. “Much like ISPs’ failure to invest in rural high-cost areas, ISPs' failure to deploy broadband in low-income communities and communities of color, especially Black and tribal communities, has replicated and perpetuated discrimination against those communities and expanded the digital divide.”

Recipients should be required to provide and promote ACP, LifeLine and their own affordable services, said the California Emerging Technology Fund. The federal funding account should be a primary source of last-mile support for the next three years "to conserve CASF revenues generated from collection of CASF fees,” CETF said.

The CPUC needn't align infrastructure account and FFA rules “because doing so may limit the reach of the programs’ separate approaches to supporting the deployment of broadband infrastructure,” said The Utility Reform Network. CforAT and EFF supported harmonizing the two programs.

Prioritize the worst areas first, urged Rural County Representatives of California. Proposed rules prioritize areas with less than 10/1 Mbps, but the CPUC may want to clarify that areas with zero service should be first to get support, said RCRC: Consider prioritizing areas that also have no reliable cellular service.

Los Angeles County suggested adopting “a more expansive prioritization that would include 'economically underserved' areas,” where median income is below the CPUC’s defined low-income threshold and where fewer than 80% of households have internet subscriptions. More than 428,000 households in the county lack a home internet subscription but "very few are likely to be considered 'unserved' according to the CPUC's definition, Los Angeles County commented Friday. ACP is helping, but it’s not permanent, the county noted. Eligible projects should support at least 100 Mbps downloads and at least 20 Mbps uploads, scalable to 100 Mbps, it said.