With more than $1.8 billion in federal cash from the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program on the line, USTelecom asked the California Public Utilities Commission to reconsider its rules for implementing the state’s BEAD initial plan volume 2. In a rehearing application (docket R.23-02-016) posted Friday at the CPUC, the national ISP association said it “cannot stand by and risk the Commission’s adoption of a collective set of requirements that will severely limit participation in and the overall effectiveness of California’s BEAD Program.” The commission should deny USTelecom's application, a consumer advocate urged.
Telecom companies balked at consumer advocates’ call to apply California carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations to broadband. The California Public Utilities Commission posted reply comments Thursday in a rulemaking about how to update the state’s 30-year-old COLR rules (docket R.24-06-012). In initial comments last month, carriers subject to COLR requirements asked that the CPUC shed those obligations in many parts of the state, while consumer advocates said COLR obligations remain necessary and should be updated to include high-speed internet service, not just voice (see 2410020037). Frontier Communications replied Wednesday that it opposes expanding the proceeding to do “a complex, controversial evaluation of legal and policy matters pertaining to the Commission’s potential regulation of broadband services.” Likewise, Consolidated Communications said the CPUC should "decline the invitation to undertake a substantial review of its regulatory jurisdiction over broadband services.” TDS protested that the consumer groups "seek to greatly expand this OIR beyond its intended purpose” without providing factual or legal reasons. Don’t let public advocates "transform this … into a generic telecommunications industry reexamination docket,” said a coalition of small rural local exchange carriers. Representing cable companies, the California Broadband and Video Association warned that adding broadband to the definition of a basic service or extending COLR obligations to broadband providers would be federally preempted. Meanwhile, the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office pushed back on companies that said COLR obligations are outdated and should be eliminated. "In reality, the COLR concept remains essential to the guarantee of universal service, but must be updated to reflect the state’s transformed telecommunications landscape,” PAO said. AT&T disagreed. "Maintaining COLR obligations where they are superfluous would divert resources from vital broadband investments to outdated [time division multiplexed] networks, which are increasingly unwanted by consumers,” the carrier said. “It would not only stifle competition by arbitrarily constraining ILECs alone but also result in unnecessary operational costs and increased environmental harm due to prolonged use of copper networks.”
The California Public Utilities Commission should consider recent federal actions on incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) before adopting a permanent intrastate rate cap, industry and consumer groups argued in comments posted Wednesday. However, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) suggested lowering the cap again on an interim basis. The CPUC received comments Tuesday on a Sept. 30 staff proposal recommending a permanent intrastate rate cap of 4.5 cents per minute for IPCS voice calls.
The California Public Utilities Commission is mulling ways it can support broadband adoption in the wake of the federal affordable connectivity (ACP) program ending, Communications Division Director Rob Osborn said during the California Broadband Council’s meeting Tuesday. The state is making significant progress advancing its broadband-for-all goals, reported Scott Adams, deputy director of the California Department of Technology (CDT) broadband and digital literacy office.
Verizon formally asked the California Public Utilities Commission to approve its $20 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications. California and many other states will review the deal, which was announced last month (see 2409050010). The companies also filed an application at the FCC last week (see 2410160049). “Verizon possesses the financial standing and expertise necessary to optimize Frontier’s networks,” the companies said in their Friday application at the CPUC. “By leveraging its significant financial strength, capital resources, and unparalleled technology, tools, and training, Verizon will build on Frontier’s post-bankruptcy efforts since April 2021 to deliver better service, increase value, and offer more choice to current Frontier customers.” The transaction’s benefits “will be achieved with no offsetting public interest harm, as Verizon and Frontier do not materially compete and have no plans to do so,” they added.
The California Public Utilities Commission cleared about $41 million in last-mile broadband grants during its livestreamed meeting Thursday. Commissioners voted 5-0 for two draft resolutions comprising the seventh round of awards from the CPUC’s federal funding account. Under one resolution (T-17852), the state will award $18 million to seven projects expected to bring broadband to 2,763 unserved locations in San Luis Obispo County. The awardees were Astound ($6.8 million), Surfnet ($6.4 million) and the city of San Luis Obispo ($4.9 million). Under the second resolution (T-17850), the CPUC will award $23 million total to Comcast ($17 million) and AT&T ($6 million) for projects in Madera and Napa counties, respectively. The CPUC expects the companies to connect 2,843 unserved locations with the funding. CPUC President Alice Reynolds applauded her agency for quickly distributing federal broadband funds. “We're making multi-generational internet infrastructure investments in these communities.” The CPUC delayed votes on proposals regulating VoIP and allowing people without social security numbers to apply for state LifeLine support (see 2410150033). The telecom industry has condemned the VoIP plan and sought more review (see 2410160044 and 2410110040).
The California Public Utilities Commission didn’t do enough research before proposing that it regulate VoIP services, the New York Law School’s Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute (ACLP) said Tuesday. The telecom industry last week condemned the proposed decision that would say interconnected VoIP providers are telephone corporations subject to the same laws and rules as other wireline and wireless telcos (see 2410110040). In reply comments, companies, including Comcast and Frontier Communications, continued calling for workshops and further review. The CPUC “failed to offer a strong factual basis to justify its expansive proposal for extending common carrier regulation to VOIP services because it did not endeavor to collect data, information, and input via evidentiary hearings and other mechanisms typically deployed by the Commission in similar circumstances,” ACLP said. “Had the Commission gathered more data and information about the downsides of regulating advanced communications services like VOIP as common carriers, it would have been able to identify the negative consumer outcomes that tend to stem from fragmented state-by-state public utility regulation of these offerings, including higher costs and fewer choices for consumers.” The CPUC was scheduled to vote on the item Thursday, but staff postponed it until Nov. 7 (see 2410150033).
Make children and teenagers eligible for California's deaf and disabled telecommunications program, Center for Accessible Technology and The Utility Reform Network said in comments posted Monday at the California Public Utilities Commission. Similar programs in Colorado, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Washington state are open to kids as young as 4 or 5 years old, said the consumer groups in docket R.23-11-001. Also, the consumer advocates said the commission should do more targeted outreach to gather input on topics including emergency preparedness, program certification requirements and ways to spur technological innovation. In addition, the CPUC should address barriers to access, they said. “A very common driver of a lack of access is a failure to recognize that there is a wide spectrum of communications needs, and that individual communications needs can be very complex.”
The California Public Utilities Commission won’t vote on possible VoIP rules at Thursday’s meeting. The telecom industry last week warned the CPUC not to vote for a proposed decision that would say that interconnected VoIP providers are telephone corporations subject to the same laws and rules as other wireline and wireless telcos (see 2410110040). CPUC staff held the item until the Nov. 7 meeting, said a hold list released Monday. In addition -- and for the fourth time -- staff postponed voting on a plan to allow people without social security numbers to apply for state LifeLine support (see 2409250016). The CPUC gave no reasons for the delays.
With the California Public Utilities Commission planning a vote within days about regulating VoIP, AT&T and the cable industry urged that commissioners at least delay -- if not outright reject -- the controversial item. Industry groups representing voice technologies stressed in comments last week in docket R.22-08-008 that the CPUC lacks legal authority to regulate VoIP.