Some Seek Changes in CPUC's BEAD Vol. 2 Rules
ISPs and consumer advocates recommended tweaks as the California Public Utilities Commission began finalizing state rules for NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program. The CPUC plans voting Sept. 26 on a proposed decision approving rules implementing volume two…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
of the CPUC’s proposed rules, which it submitted to NTIA in December. Determining the extremely high cost per location threshold (EHCPLT) on a project area unit (PAU) basis as proposed "will lead to inconsistent results,” said AT&T in comments Thursday, recommending a statewide approach instead. “Such piecemeal and fluctuating EHCPLT determinations make project predictability difficult as applicants formulate their submissions and will likely increase the number of PAUs that would be too costly for fiber deployments.” Also, several proposals would "result in rate regulation in violation of the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act," including a proposed middle-class affordable option with a $74 monthly rate cap, AT&T said. The California Broadband & Video Association advised that CPUC maximize BEAD funding’s reach “by prioritizing private matching funds over speculative awards from other grant programs and by ensuring that applicants have the financial capability and sustainability for their proposed projects.” Avoid discouraging participation with "restrictive price caps" or "skewed scoring criteria related to affordability, labor, and network resilience,” the cable association said. But Tarana Wireless asked the CPUC to reconsider scoring criteria that favor big companies. For example, one category "will only award a full 20 points to providers capable of providing at least a 65% private sector match or more of requested funding amount," a requirement that's "unusually high and favors larger and wealthier service providers.” The CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office urged setting "a hire bar" for allowing a subgrantee to increase the price of a required $30 low-cost option. Center for Accessible Technology, another consumer group, asked why companies may request increasing low-cost plan prices to account for inflation or increased costs, but there’s no way to reduce prices “when a provider’s financial viability can be sustained at the lower level.” The Utility Reform Network said the CPUC should plan for the possibility that the low-cost option and affordability issues may need to be revisited, including due to the end of the affordable connectivity program.