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.
Federal law doesn't preempt New York state’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friday. In a 2-1 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, which had barred the state from enforcing the 2021 Affordable Broadband Act (ABA). The ABA required $15 monthly plans providing 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households.
Some California lawmakers want to take broadband responsibilities from the California Public Utilities Commission and create a broadband office, similar to many other states. At a webcast hearing Wednesday, the Assembly Communications Committee advanced Democratic Chair Tasha Boerner’s AB-2575, which would establish a department and commission on broadband and digital equity. The committee also cleared bills concerning the 211 helpline, video franchising and shot clocks for utilities to review broadband applications.
California should “provide temporary bridge funding for two years through” the state LifeLine program to "mitigate harm to low-income consumers from" the impending end of the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP), consumer advocates said Tuesday at the California Public Utilities Commission. The Utility Reform Network and the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office sought “limited modifications” to an October 2020 CPUC decision on LifeLine-specific support amounts and minimum service standards. The groups proposed allowing LifeLine participants to temporarily apply state and federal low-income benefits to a standalone wireline broadband service, while the CPUC considers a long-term answer. Urging the CPUC to act quickly, the groups additionally filed a motion to halve the typical required time to respond to their petition to 15 days, which would make comments due May 8. The groups recently sought modification to other past CPUC decisions due to ACP expected end (see 2404230020). But the cable industry has raised concerns (see 2404230020).
TikTok will challenge the newly approved “unconstitutional” law forcing ByteDance to sell the platform, it said in a statement Wednesday as President Joe Biden signed the measure.
No “good cause” exists to shorten time to respond to a petition related to the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) ending, the California Broadband & Video Association (CalBroadband) said Monday in a filing at the California Public Utilities Commission. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) last week asked the CPUC to pause awarding grants and quickly modify grant rules to ensure service remains affordable after ACP ends (see 2404150062). Since TURN’s proposal “would fundamentally change” the CPUC’s 2022 decision adopting Infrastructure Grant Account rules, parties should have the full 30 days to respond that CPUC rules require, CalBroadband said. The cable association foreshadowed that it will ask the CPUC to deny TURN’s petition and move quickly to grant pending infrastructure grant applications.
California state and local enforcers could seek injunctive relief for digital discrimination under modification to a bill by Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D). The Assembly Judiciary Committee approved AB-2239 with the amendment at a livestreamed meeting Tuesday. The panel and the Senate Judiciary Committee also considered multiple bills on algorithms and social media.