California might deny AT&T's application for carrier-of-last-resort (COLR) relief. The state's Public Utilities Commission will vote during its June 20 meeting on a proposed decision dismissing the carrier’s application in docket R.23-03-003. Comments are due May 30. Also, the CPUC said it plans to open a rulemaking on possibly revising COLR rules. The state commission’s withdrawal rules require another existing COLR or a replacement in the area where a company is leaving, CPUC Administrative Law Judge Thomas Glegola said in the proposal. “No other COLR serves AT&T’s service territory. No potential COLR applied to replace AT&T.” The commission delayed the proceeding so it could find possible replacements (see 2403120052). The CPUC received more than 5,000 public comments about the AT&T application and more than 5,800 people attended eight public forums around the state, said a CPUC news release. Many raised concerns that wireless and VoIP were unreliable, the agency said. “Despite AT&T’s contention that providers of voice alternatives to landline service -- such as VoIP or mobile wireless services -- can fill the gap,” the CPUC’s tentative decision finds that the carrier “failed to demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to serve as COLR, nor did AT&T prove that alternative providers met the COLR definition,” the CPUC said. The COLR rules don’t stop AT&T from retiring copper or investing in fiber, the agency added. AT&T is disappointed because “we’d hoped the commission would allow us the opportunity to demonstrate why the number of options for voice service available to customers make the COLR obligation unnecessary,” a company spokesperson said. “Not surprisingly, no providers were interested in bidding on a service with a declining number of customers given the competitive options available in today’s marketplace.” AT&T looks forward to participating in future CPUC evidentiary hearings on COLR rules, the spokesperson added.
T-Mobile voluntarily dismissed its complaint against the California Public Utilities Commission regarding the state’s shift to a per-line universal service fund surcharge. The 9th Circuit Court last month affirmed the U.S. District Court for Northern California decision to deny a preliminary injunction against the CPUC (see 2404260066). The 9th Circuit said the carrier failed to show a likelihood of success. “This notice of voluntary dismissal is being filed with the Court before Defendants have served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment … and by operation of law, the dismissal is without prejudice,” T-Mobile said Thursday at the district court (case 3:23-cv-00483-LB).
The California Public Utilities Commission set next steps for foster youth and broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) programs through two 4-0 votes at a livestreamed meeting Thursday. The vote on extending the CPUC’s current foster youth pilot program beyond July came after multiple delays as the agency and stakeholders considered how to ensure a seamless transition. And even with the first volume of California’s BEAD plan done, much work remains to achieve maximum broadband across the state, California commissioners said.
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.”
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.
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).
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.