The arm wrestling over how California should manage its primary broadband infrastructure subsidy program – the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) – is nearly complete. Ten organisations filed comments on a draft of new rules offered by commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves last month. The rewrite is necessary because the California legislature changed the way CASF is structured, giving incumbent telcos – particularly AT&T and Frontier Communications – privileged access to the money and another layer of protection from independent providers that propose to offer modern levels of broadband service to rural communities. Not surprisingly, AT&T and Frontier want the CPUC to make it easier for them to scoop up taxpayer money and harder for everyone else.
AT&T urges the commission to loosen the draft rules so it can get 100% subsidies for infrastructure wherever it wants – the CPUC’s draft would target low income communities and areas with nothing but dial-up service for full funding. The company also claims that it’s illegal for the commission to consider whether there are any existing subscribers in an area before deciding that it’s eligible for subsidies. A provider’s claim that it offers broadband service at particular speeds should be enough, AT&T argues.
Frontier added an amen to those prayers, saying in its comments that it “opposes setting specific criteria linked to funding levels” and that the commission should take its word for what service it offers.
Both companies also object to a requirement that they update the CPUC on the progress they’re making on federally subsidised broadband upgrades. The state law that they
paid key lawmakers big bucks for convinced public-spirited legislators to pass gives them an exclusive right to Californian subsidies in those areas for a couple of years, if they actually do the promised work. How dare the CPUC ask them if they’re meeting those obligations?
A coalition of rural telephone companies – small, often locally owned incumbent providers that serve remote communities – echoed some of those comments. They, too, object to the use of actual subscriber data to validate marketing claims and to the requirement for a reduced cost plan for low income households.
The lobbying front organisation that pushes Comcast’s and Charter Communications’ agenda at the CPUC as well as at the state capitol also filed comments – I’ll have more to say about that on Monday.
There’s one more round of reply comments due next week, then commissioners will vote on the final draft. That could happen in a couple of weeks, at their next meeting on 13 December 2018.
Central Coast Broadband Consortium
CPUC Public Advocates Office (formerly known as the office of ratepayer advocates)
TURN and Greenlining Institute joint comments
California Cable and Telecommunications Association (lobbyists for Comcast, Charter and other cable companies)
California Emerging Technology Fund
Small Local Exchange Carriers (small, rural telcos)
I drafted and submitted the comments filed by the Central Coast Broadband Consortium. I am not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.