The California Public Utilities Commission could freeze the state LifeLine specific support amount (SSA) for wireline and wireless providers at $19 until it adopts another method for calculating the SSA, Administrative Law Judge Robyn Purchia said in a Monday ruling in docket R20-02-008. Purchia sought comments on the possible freeze by June 3. Replies will be due June 14. Carriers in January comments resisted a CPUC staff proposal for updating the method (see 2401250051). “We agree with parties’ recommendations to further analyze market conditions, customer impacts, pilot results, and the regulatory landscape,” Purchia wrote. “However, we also see a need to de-link the SSA from the highest [carrier of last resort] basic rate before rates increase again in 2025.”

Minnesota won’t craft a law that might put the state's $652 million allocation from NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program in jeopardy, Senate Broadband Committee Chair Aric Putnam (D) pledged shortly after midnight Tuesday. Up late considering a labor budget bill that included an industry-opposed broadband safety proposal, senators voted 35-32 to reject amendments from Sen. Gene Dornink (R) that would have scrapped the worker safety plan.

Most comments support an Enterprise Wireless Alliance petition at the FCC seeking modifications to Part 90 rules to eliminate the assignment of frequencies within the band's 809-816/854-861 MHz portion to specific pools of eligible entities (see 2402280033). Public safety groups opposed the change.

Indian Peak Properties seeks to vacate the FCC’s March 7 order denying its petitions for declaratory ruling, said its petition for review Monday (docket 24-1108) in U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit. Indian Peak's petitions had sought a federal preemption under the commission’s over-the-air reception devices (OTARDs) rule of a decision by Rancho Palos Verdes, California, to revoke, under local ordinances, the company’s conditional use permit for the deployment of rooftop antennas on a local property. The FCC’s order denying Indian Peaks that relief was premised on a new “human presence” rule for OTARDs, the petition said. That means FCC staff found that Indian Peak failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a regular human presence at the property where the antennas were deployed. But such a “substantive rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act requires a notice-and-comment rulemaking to be legal and effective, said Indian Peak's petition. But “no notice was given, and the public was afforded no opportunity to comment on the new rule,” it said. Instead, the order announced this rule when it denied Indian Peak’s application for review before the commission, it said. The order also upholds FCC staff’s refusal to declare a proceeding, and hold in abeyance state court litigation, it said, The order thus “upholds staff’s violations of FCC rules of procedure,” it said. With its appeal, Indian Peak seeks reversal of these “arbitrary and capricious agency actions that are contrary to law,” and remand to the FCC “for treatment not inconsistent” with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, it said. On remand and with the FCC’s grant of Indian Peak’s petitions, the local zoning ordinance would be preempted, and the company would be able to replace the disputed antennas on the rooftop of the property, it said.

A proposal that the FCC launch a rulemaking authorizing 5/5 MHz broadband deployments in the 900 MHz band received support in comments, which were due Thursday in docket 24-99. But commenters stressed that the relocation process must be voluntary, and that the rules must protect incumbents from harmful interference. The filings offer a snapshot of how 900 MHz is used today.

Vermont’s net neutrality law seems in good shape legally following two significant, late-April decisions by the FCC and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said experts on the statute. ISP groups must decide what to do with their 2018 lawsuit at U.S. District Court of Vermont now that the case can resume following the 2nd Circuit ruling.

The California Public Utilities Commission won’t shorten time to respond to consumer advocates’ petition to modify state LifeLine rules in light of the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) ending. Comments will be due May 23, CPUC Administrative Law Judge Robyn Purchia ruled Tuesday. The California Broadband & Video Association (CalBroadband) had opposed fast comments on multiple petitions by The Utility Reform Network and the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office (see 2404240063, 2404230020 and 2404150062). “We are persuaded by the due process concerns raised by CalBroadband,” said Purchia said in docket R.20-02-008.

California aims to quickly expand broadband access using a large influx of state and federal funding, California Public Utilities Commission officials said at a virtual workshop Monday. "Eliminating the digital divide could not be more urgent than it is right now,” said Commissioner Darcie Houck, who is assigned to the agency’s California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) docket. "Crossing the finish line will take hard work and creativity from government, communities, carriers and all of our stakeholders." Since it was created in 2008, CASF has awarded about $400 million to more than 1,100 projects, including $40 million to 187 projects in 2023 alone, Houck said. When the deadline closed earlier this month for the $750 million Broadband Loan Loss Reserve Fund (BLLRF) program, the CPUC had received about 400 applications requesting $430 million, she said. The program is meant to fund nonprofits, local and tribal governments' broadband infrastructure deployment. The agency plans to announce BLLRF awards in Q2 and Q3 this year, she said. While there remain “barriers and inequalities” with broadband access in California, CPUC Deputy Director Maria Ellis said she is optimistic the state can soon close the digital “chasm.” However, Ellis noted that price is one key challenge. The federal affordable connectivity program helped reduce costs, but its possible sunset could mean low-income households will again face high bills soon, she said.

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that denied preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission shifting to a per line surcharge for the state Universal Service Fund. T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless had argued that the state must align with the FCC’s revenue-based method for federal USF. But on March 31 last year, the U.S. District Court for Northern California decided not to block the CPUC’s April 1 change. The 9th Circuit heard arguments on an appeal in October (see 2310170042). "The carriers have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the access line rule is 'inconsistent with' the FCC rule,” Judge Ryan Nelson wrote in Friday’s opinion, which Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler joined (case 23-15490). The court referred to the Communications Act's Section 254(f), which prohibits USF rules that are "inconsistent" with FCC rules. Inconsistent doesn’t mean different, Nelson wrote. "The access line rule differs from the FCC’s rule funding interstate universal service programs. But the carriers have not shown that it burdens those programs, and they have thus failed to show that they are likely to succeed on their claim that it is inconsistent with those rules." Also, the court rejected T-Mobile’s claim that the surcharge rule is preempted because it's inequitable and discriminatory. "The carriers argue that they are harmed more than local exchange carriers,” but the CPUC rule treats all telecom technologies “the same and, if anything, is more equitable than the prior rule, under which most of the surcharges came only from ever-dwindling landline services,” Nelson said. The CPUC’s "course correction" is "a fair response to a real problem,” he added. “In a world of ever-evolving telecommunications technologies, competitive neutrality must allow some play in the joints. To hold otherwise would hamstring California’s ability to satisfy its statutory mandate of providing universal service." T-Mobile also argued the change was discriminatory because the CPUC rule treats providers who get federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) support differently from those in the state LifeLine program. But the court found differences between the programs and noted that companies in ACP have the option of joining LifeLine. The decision "affirms that the CPUC's surcharge rule is consistent with federal law," said a commission spokesperson. "The CPUC will continue to utilize the surcharge to ensure consumers have safe, reliable, affordable, and universal access to telecommunications services." T-Mobile didn’t immediately comment.

HOT SPRINGS, Virginia -- Expect increasingly heated clashes in coming years between factions advancing exclusive use of spectrum and those supporting spectrum sharing, as well as policy discussions about USF contribution changes, aides to the FCC commissioners said Friday at the FCBA annual seminar here. Meanwhile, AI experts said that in the absence of congressional action they see the FTC and states becoming vigorous in regulating generative AI.