California could be first in the nation to codify the FCC’s definition of digital discrimination into state law. Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D) introduced AB-2239 on Wednesday, the California Alliance for Digital Equity said Thursday. “This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to adopt subsequent legislation that codifies a definition of ‘digital discrimination of access’ in state law that conforms to the definition adopted by the Federal Communications Commission,” said a legislative digest on the measure. In a November order (see 2311150040), the FCC defined “digital discrimination of access” as “policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that (1) differentially impact consumers' access to broadband internet access service based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin or (2) are intended to have such differential impact.” Defining digital discrimination could help move a proceeding on digital redlining at the California Public Utilities Commission, said Shayna Englin, California Community Foundation director-digital equity initiative, in an interview. The proceeding stalled amid argument about the definition, said Englin. CPUC digital redlining rules would guide the agency in the years ahead as it distributes $8 billion state and federal broadband funding, she said. Englin predicted a fight between digital equity advocates and the telecom industry, which is expected to oppose AB-2239. The California Broadband and Video Association is reviewing the legislation, said a spokesperson for the state cable group. USTelecom declined to comment. The Los Angeles City Council passed a similar law at the local level last month.
The California Public Utilities Commission must ensure a smooth transition from a pilot to a permanent California LifeLine foster youth program, commenters said Tuesday in docket R.20-02-008. The CPUC may consider a Jan. 10 proposed decision to make the program permanent at its Feb. 15 meeting. However, the proposal doesn't address how pilot program participants will receive service after the proposed permanent program replaces it July 31, said T-Mobile, the pilot’s service provider. The permanent program would use other service providers. "Due to confidentiality concerns with foster youth, T-Mobile has no direct contractual relationship with any of the youth nor does it know their identities,” the carrier said. "T-Mobile simply has no way -- or authority -- to continue to provide service after July 31, 2024.” The pilot’s administrator iFoster said the CPUC should allow foster youth to continue receiving pilot program services for a year after the pilot ends “to encourage continuation of service and reimbursement of the current service.” Otherwise, the transition could result in inadvertently cutting off service to the pilot's 11,700 participants, it warned. Also, iFoster raised concerns that the proposed decision wouldn’t require data-sharing agreements with counties before transferring pilot program data to the new administrator. Without them, iFoster can’t transfer pilot data, it said. Also, the CPUC should allow foster youth to participate in the program until they are 26, iFoster said. The CPUC proposal would end benefits at 18, or 21 if the youth is in extended foster care. “Foster youth are extremely vulnerable once they leave the foster youth system” and will need a phone to apply for jobs, college or government benefits, iFoster said. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) urged the CPUC to clarify that it will own all data from the program. Also, establishing that the agency “will enter contracts and data sharing agreements for the permanent program will prevent the need to re-negotiate those agreements any time the [third-party administrator] changes, which would reduce transition time and enhance program continuity,” TURN said. The CPUC should require providers to replace mobile devices at no cost, it added. "Foster youth can change placement frequently, sometimes with little advance notice, so there is a risk of losing devices when they move.”
Public housing broadband grant recipients should provide free service without government subsidies, the California Public Utilities Commission could soon clarify. The CPUC may vote March 7 on a proposed decision that would adopt changes to the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband public housing account and tribal technical assistance program (docket R.20-08-021). Responding to some commenters’ questions about the public housing program’s no-cost broadband obligation (see 2312140034), the CPUC would clarify that "the Commission’s intent is for BPHA grant recipients to provide broadband service at no cost to residents of the low-income community, without public purpose subsidies or other funding, which is consistent with our determination in Resolution T-17775 that ‘no cost’ means unsubsidized service that is free to customers.” The CPUC rejected a cable industry challenge to that resolution in September, affirming that service the affordable connectivity program subsidizes doesn’t count as free (see 2309010006). In general, the CPUC’s possible changes to the broadband public housing account “expand eligibility for non-publicly supported housing developments and for project costs to facilitate deployment of broadband networks in low-income communities that lack access to free broadband service that meets state standards,” the proposed decision said Monday. Changes to the tribal technical assistance program would align it with the local agency technical assistance program, the CPUC added. In a separate proceeding on utility service affordability (docket 18-07-006), the California Broadband and Video Association warned the CPUC not to expand the proceeding's focus beyond gas, water and electric. ISPs aren’t public utilities, the state cable association said Thursday. “The broadband marketplace continues to be marked by extensive and rapidly increasing competition across a variety of technologies and platforms, which disciplines prices and improves affordability without regulatory price controls.”
California should allow low-income consumers to apply for the state's LifeLine program without providing the last four digits of their social security numbers, consumer advocates told the California Public Utilities Commission Friday. The CPUC last month sought comments about expanding the program for those without SSNs (see 2312200019). Lifeline providers said they would consider it if the state makes up for a possible gap in federal funding and waives liability for incorrect enrollments.
Wireless carriers in comments this week condemned a “dynamic approach” to data and other proposals for California’s low-income program. The California Public Utilities Commission received feedback Wednesday on an Oct. 30 staff proposal for setting California LifeLine specific support amounts (SSA) and minimum service standards (MSS). Some urged the CPUC to tap the brakes, especially with uncertainty about continued funding for the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP).
The California Public Utilities Commission set a two-day evidentiary hearing April 9-10 on AT&T’s application to relinquish its eligible telecom carrier (ETC) designation across the state (docket A.23-03-002). The hearing starts at 10 a.m. PST each day, said Administrative Law Judge Thomas Glegola in a Friday ruling. Under the new schedule, AT&T remains required to file rebuttal testimony by Friday (see 2310200050). Opening briefs are due May 17, reply briefs June 7, said the ruling. The CPUC expects to post a proposed decision in September, it said.
State video franchise holders must submit data to the California Public Utilities Commission, including on previous and existing customer service standards and “information about material breaches” of those standards, Administrative Law Judge Margery Melvin ruled Thursday. The CPUC needs the information for a rulemaking (docket R.23-04-006) to consider changes to video franchise requirements under the state’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA). The rulemaking responds to a 2021 law that revised DIVCA to require the commission to adopt video and broadband customer service requirements and adjudicate customer complaints (see 2311300030). Data is due Feb. 12.
The California Public Utilities Commission extended the deadline 30 days, until Feb. 7, for Verizon and consumer advocates to complete negotiating a settlement on migrating TracFone customers still using non-Verizon networks. CPUC Administrative Law Judge Thomas Glegola granted Verizon’s request on Friday in docket A.20-11-001. The parties already agree in principle on most issues, the request said.
Verizon could soon finalize a possible settlement with The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) related to migrating TracFone customers still using non-Verizon networks, the carrier said Wednesday at the California Public Utilities Commission. “The parties have an agreement in principle on most terms and are close to resolving the remaining terms,” Verizon emailed Administrative Law Judge Thomas Glegola. The email was shared with the service list in docket A.20-11-001. While Verizon said the deal could be done in two weeks, it asked Glegola for 30 days -- until Feb. 7 -- to conclude the settlement. Verizon said CforAT and TURN support the extension. In another docket, A.23-09-006, Frontier Communications told the CPUC that it doesn’t necessarily oppose Blue Casa’s application to relinquish its eligible telecom carrier (ETC) designation and discontinue local exchange and interexchange services in AT&T and Frontier territory. But the commission should impose “reasonable conditions on Blue Casa to ensure a fair and reasonable mass migration, including setting a reasonable timeframe for any required mass migration and Blue Casa’s proposed market exit,” Frontier wrote Wednesday. “Frontier estimates that approximately eight to ten weeks from the date of the Commission’s approval of the Application would be needed to migrate the 639 Blue Casa customers that are in Frontier’s service area.” Also, the CPUC should condition the exit on Blue Casa paying its outstanding balance to Frontier and reimbursing “Frontier’s reasonable costs for implementing any forced mass migration.” Also Wednesday, CPUC Administrative Law Judge Patricia Miles set a preconference hearing for Jan. 22 on Consolidated Communications' transfer of indirect ownership and control of its California and enterprise subsidiaries to Condor Holdings. Consolidated and Condor sought New Hampshire approval last week (see 2401020037).