Faster standards for broadband subsidies head to California senate floor, two other key bills killed

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Cruzio fiber build 625

A bill to raise California’s minimum broadband speed standard and subsidise fiber to the premise infrastructure was blessed by the California senate’s appropriations committee yesterday. But the bill was amended and the changes haven’t been published yet. Two other bills that would have put emergency preparedness and response obligations on all Internet service providers were killed behind closed doors by senate leadership.

Senate bill 1130, authored by Lena Gonzalez (D – Los Angeles), would raise the eligibility standard for broadband infrastructure subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) to 25 Mbps download/25 Mbps upload speeds, from the current pathetic level of 6 Mbps down/1 Mbps up.

Any community, or area within a community, that lacks broadband service at or above the eligibility standard – 6/1 now, maybe 25/25 soon – would be able to get money from CASF to upgrade broadband infrastructure to a higher service. Now, that level is an equally pathetic 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up, which has allowed Frontier Communications to take millions of dollars from CASF for marginal DSL upgrades. Much of the arm wrestling over SB 1130 is about what the new construction standard would be – it began at 100 Mbps down and up, and has since slid to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up. Which is lower than the eligibility standard. Yesterday’s amendments might have resolved that paradox. Might.

SB 1058, by Ben Hueso (D – San Diego) and SB 1069, by Hannah-Beth Jackson (D – Santa Barbara) were aimed at solving some of the problems that have plagued emergency officials during wildfires and public safety power shutoffs during the past few years. Among other things, both would have treated all ISPs the same. Cable companies, mobile carriers and others that have carved out comfortable privileges and immunities for themselves, usually with big cash payments to lawmakers. They opposed SB 1058 and SB 1069 and may have gotten their money’s worth yesterday.

Cable companies, including Charter Communications and Comcast, are using their Sacramento lobbying front to oppose the higher standards in SB 1130 as well. They want to block any hint of a threat to their high speed broadband monopolies. The next stop for SB 1130, whatever the amended version turns out to be, is a vote by the full California senate.

Hundreds of layoffs are following in the wake of the T-Mobile/Sprint deal

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Sprint booth mwc la 2019 22oct2019

T-Mobile is laying off hundreds of former Sprint employees as it consolidates the operations of the two mobile carriers that merged in April. A story by Zack Whittaker and Brian Heater at Tech Crunch broke the news about Sprint employees on Tuesday…

In a conference call on Monday lasting under six minutes, T-Mobile vice president James Kirby told hundreds of Sprint employees that their services were no longer needed. He declined to answer his employees’ questions, citing the “personal” nature of employee feedback, and ended the call.

T-Mobile responded with a press release in which it claimed it would “add 5,000 new positions over the next year”, but for now it wanted to “focus” its resources…

This will result in additional career opportunities for many, as the company positions itself for long-term healthy growth. As part of this process, some employees who hold similar positions are being asked to consider a career change inside the company, and others will be supported in their efforts to find a new position outside the company.

Translation: yeah, we’re firing them.

These involuntary “career changes” should come as no surprise. During the California Public Utilities Commission’s review of the merger, T-Mobile promised on the one hand to keep its combined California workforce at the same level for the next three years, while on the other hand agreeing to open a new call center in Fresno County that would employ 1,000 people. Do the math.

The CPUC did the math, and required T-Mobile to make those 1,000 call center jobs a net addition to the combined T-Mobile/Sprint headcount as of the merger date. Whether or not that order has any teeth is unknown. T-Mobile has consistently maintained that the commission has no authority over its wireless business, and matched those words with deeds.

Even bigger job cuts are coming at AT&T. It’s primary union, the Communications Workers of America, says 3,400 AT&T employees are about to be out of work, and hundreds of wireless stores will close, according to a story in FierceWireless by Bevin Fletcher.

Wireless, DSL tech proposed for subsidised rural broadband will get extra scrutiny from FCC

by Steve Blum • , , ,

Clouseau 625

When the Federal Communications Commission last week approved application requirements and bidding procedures for the reverse auction it’ll use to distribute $16 billion in rural broadband subsidies, it toughened up language regarding performance claims for fixed wireless and DSL-based service. The final version of the rules builds on an earlier draft that was already highly sceptical of any potential claims that wireless or DSL technology could deliver gigabit level service – defined as 1,000 Mbps download and 500 Mbps upload speeds – on a consumer market basis.

The FCC plans to grill bidders making such claims…

We anticipate that Commission staff will benefit from having the opportunity to discuss network plans with each applicant through the Commission’s existing resubmission process. An applicant proposing to deploy fixed wireless and DSL technologies to offer Gigabit speeds and any engineers that assisted with the application must be prepared to engage in follow-up conference calls upon request with Commission staff to elaborate on their…responses with a particular focus on concerns raised in the record.

We retain maximum flexibility to take enforcement action based on the specifics of each circumstance. We do note that the base default [fine] we have already adopted for Auction 904 will be subject to adjustment upward or downward as appropriate…All applicants should conduct due diligence and consider seriously whether they will be able to meet the relevant public interest obligations before selecting performance tier and latency combinations in their applications.

Translation: put up or shut up. Or get whacked with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of dollars in fines.

Fixed wireless providers, particularly, will have to show how any gigabit service claims they make conform to the laws of physics. Or as the FCC puts it, they’ll have to answer challenging questions about…

Distance limitations, spectrum bands attributes, channel bandwidths requirements, backhaul and medium haul requirements, tower siting requirements, capacity constraints, required upstream speeds, required minimum monthly usage allowances, and other issues raised in the record.

The door also opened a crack to low earth orbit satellite systems, particularly SpaceX’s Starlink constellation. Instead of being barred from claiming low latency capability, they’ll also “face a substantial challenge” convincing FCC staff that they have it.

Rural Digital Opportunity Fund phase 1 auction Procedures public notice, 11 June 2020
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction technical guide, 10 June 2020

CPUC “wireless resiliency” plan targets mobile carriers, doesn’t exempt WISPs

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Cpuc fire threat map 11jun2020

Click for the interactive fire threat map.

Mobile carriers – AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile – will have to install emergency generators at their cell sites in high fire danger areas, if the California Public Utilities Commission approves a draft decision offered last week by president Marybel Batjer. They’ll also have to meet other requirements intended to insure “wireless resiliency” during emergencies, natural or man-made, including public safety power shut-offs.

The proposed rules would apply to “facilities-based wireless providers” and require them “to maintain a minimum level of service and coverage to provide access to 911, 211, to receive emergency notifications, and access web browsing for emergency notices”.

As it’s commonly used in the industry, and by the CPUC when it refers to “broadband providers”, “facility-based” is a term that includes fixed wireless Internet service providers (WISPs). The hundred-plus page draft doesn’t explicitly limit its definition of facilities-based wireless providers to mobile carriers, although the context clearly does. There’s no mention of WISPs and the legalese leans heavily on the CPUC’s authority over telephone service, even to the point of anachronistically asserting “the public has an expectation that they will hear a dial tone on their wireless device”.

On the other hand, if the intent was to apply the rules specifically to mobile carriers – a jurisdictionally fraught notion – it would have been relatively simple to do so. Instead, the draft cites the CPUC’s role in regulating 911 services (which can be delivered via mobile and VoIP technology) issuing licenses – certificates of public convenience and necessity (CPCNs) – to telecoms companies of all kinds, and its “broad jurisdiction” over “other communications utilities”.

Going forward, it could be argued that a WISP that holds a CPCN or offers VoIP service – or maybe just provides “web browsing for emergency notices” – also must meet wireless resiliency standards. There’s no clear authority for the CPUC to regulate WISPs as such, and it hasn’t done so. The proposed decision pushes further into the grey area, though.

More clarity could be on the way. Senate bill 1058 would extend emergency service obligations to “every Internet service provider” in California. We’ll know later this week whether Californian legislative leaders deem it worthy of consideration by the full senate. And the CPUC is just getting started. The proposed wireless resiliency order says a future commission decision “will consider promulgating resiliency requirements for other telecommunications providers”.

Wireless resiliency, according to the draft, means…

The ability to recover from or adjust to adversity or change through an array of strategies including, but not limited to: backup power, redundancy, network hardening, temporary facilities, communication and coordination with other utilities, emergency responders, the public and finally, preparedness planning.

Specifically, wireless providers would have to install back-up power capable of keeping their networks up for at least 72 hours, but only in the parts of their service areas that are classified as “tier 2 and tier 3 high fire threat districts”. As the CPUC’s interactive map shows, that includes most of the California coast, the Sierra Nevada, the Cascades and large swaths of the southland.

All wireless providers, not just those in high fire threat areas, would have to file resiliency plans “that detail their ability to maintain a minimum level of service and coverage during a disaster or a commercial power grid outage”, as well as “annual emergency operations plans”.

The commission could vote on the proposed rules as soon as mid-July. In the meantime, it’ll be accepting public comments on the draft.

Proposed Decision of Commissioner Batjer Adopting Wireless Provider Resiliency Strategies, 11 June 2020

Tight limits on local review of cell site expansions just got tighter, as FCC widens preemptions

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Marina cell sites 625

On a party line vote last week – republicans yes, democrats no – the Federal Communications Commission further preempted local government control over wireless facilities such as cell sites and towers. The ruling tightens enforcement of a 60-day shot clock for local permit approval of what it reckons to be minor modifications to a site. If time expires, the permit is "deemed granted. It also bans additional aesthetic requirements and widens a loophole that allows wireless companies to escape existing ones.

The first draft of the new rules was published last month, and despite a flood of objections from local governments, nothing much changed. The final version tweaks the definition of the trigger that starts the 60-day shot clock. It begins running when two things happen:

  1. An applicant “takes the first procedural step that the local jurisdiction requires”, which could be a meeting with staff to discuss the project, although the FCC considers the step taken when the company makes “a written request to schedule the meeting”. The same applies to things like community meetings or planning reviews – the 60 days starts ticking down as soon as the request for such is made.
  2. “The applicant submits written documentation showing that a proposed modification is an eligible facilities request” – in other words, is a minor collocation of transmission equipment on an existing structure, as defined by congress and the FCC. The local agency doesn’t have to buy off on the claim or consider the documentation complete. The company just has to file its arguments.

A tight limit on concealment requirements also got some minor editing, although it didn’t satisfy objections raised by local governments or commissioner Geoffrey Starks, a democrat. New concealment or stealthing measures can’t be imposed, and existing requirements can only be enforced if there is “express evidence in the record to demonstrate that a locality considered in its approval that a stealth design for a telecommunications facility would look like something else, such as a pine tree, flag pole, or chimney”. The new rules are not workable, Starks said in his dissent

In many cases, local governments approved sites years ago, well before passage of the Spectrum Act. Particularly for smaller cities, it’s unlikely that their decisions explain the intent behind a particular requirement affecting a site’s appearance. Yet today’s Declaratory Ruling states that, unless the regulator can provide express evidence in the record demonstrating that a requirement was intended to disguise the nature of the equipment as something other than a wireless facility, the local government must give streamlined treatment to any changes. Moreover, for changes in appearance that don’t disguise the nature of the equipment but merely make it harder to notice, the Declaratory Ruling establishes a standard that effectively preempts any requirement that the applicant claims it cannot reasonably meet…

Doing this via a Declaratory Ruling will place an undue burden on local governments that are unfamiliar with the Commission. A clerk in a small city may not realize that a proposed site modification will require her to review not only the Code of Federal Regulations but the language of this decision and our 2014 order.

The FCC’s decision also begins the next phase of its campaign to end local discretion over cell sites and other wireless facilities. It’s considering allowing companies to expand the boundaries of “an existing facility…up to 30 feet in any direction”, under the same shall approve within 60 days rule. It’s asking for public comments, but not offering much time – 20 days after the notice is published in the federal register, with reply comments due 30 days after that.

Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests, 9 June 2020

AT&T blows off net neutrality as it zero rates HBO Max

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Marvin fire

AT&T is giving its HBO Max streaming service a free ride on its mobile broadband network. The bandwidth consumed by AT&T mobile customers while watching HBO Max programming won’t be counted against their monthly data caps. According to a story in The Verge by Nilay Patel, AT&T’s streaming competition won’t get the same zero rating treatment…

HBO Max, AT&T’s big bet on the future of streaming, will be excused from AT&T’s mobile data caps, while competing services like Netflix and Disney Plus will use up your data…

AT&T…confirmed to The Verge that HBO Max will be excused from the company’s traditional data caps and the soft data caps on unlimited plans.

The story goes on to say that AT&T offers other streaming platforms the opportunity to pay for the bandwidth their subscribers consume, but none have found the deal compelling enough to take it. It works for AT&T because it’s just taking money out of its HBO Now pocket and putting it into its AT&T mobile pocket.

Whether it’s a privilege it reserves for itself or one it sells to others, AT&T’s zero rating tactic is the kind of conduct that network neutrality rules are intended to stop. If there were network neutrality rules. The current Federal Communications Commission thinks zero rating and pretty much anything else AT&T does is just fine – that’s why the republican majority voted in 2017 to repeal the net neutrality rules established during the Obama administration.

It’s different in California, sorta. A law passed in 2018 bans “zero-rating some Internet content, applications, services, or devices in a category of Internet content, applications, services, or devices, but not the entire category”, or accepting payment to do so. Unfortunately that law – senate bill 822 – is on ice right now. California attorney general Xavier Becerra agreed not to enforce it while appeals of the FCC’s 2017 decision work their way through the federal courts.

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. refused in February to reconsider its earlier decision (mostly) upholding the FCC’s net neutrality rollback. The nominal 90-day deadline for taking it to the federal supreme court passed without action last month. The net neutrality battle could be back in California soon.

CPUC knows how to end taxpayer-funded middle mile fiber grabs. As it should

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Connected central coast 625

It can be done right. As it has.

One of the challenges to broadband subsidy proposals submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission this week shows why open access middle mile fiber is a necessity for closing rural broadband gaps, and how the lack of it is a major barrier to improving Internet service in California.

Plumas Sierra Telecommunications, which is the telecoms arm of the Plumas Sierra Electric Cooperative, objects to Frontier’s request for money to pay for a building a middle mile fiber route to reach the towns of Herlong and Janesville in Lassen County. Plumas Sierra doesn’t object to spending California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) subsidies on middle mile fiber. It wants Frontier to make use of the CASF-funded middle mile fiber that it’s built, rather than using more CASF money to overbuild it.

Parsing Plumas Sierra’s objections illustrate a major problem with the way in which CPUC approves middle mile projects. Plumas Sierra claims that it “already provides wholesale services via its existing middle-mile fiber-optic infrastructure with high-quality and reasonable price levels”. Translation: we don’t lease subsidised dark fiber to competitors, but we will sell them higher priced services over it.

Frontier does the same thing. It received $11 million from CASF last year for a project to build 137 miles of middle fiber and upgrade DSL facilities in Lassen and Modoc counties. Dark fiber strands on that network are not available on the open market.

The result is a patchwork of taxpayer-funded middle mile routes scattered across rural California that private companies can use to extract monopoly profits – “rents”, in microeconomic terms. CASF rules allow broadband companies to indulge in this sort of rent seeking behavior at public expense.

There are exceptions, though. The CPUC recently imposed open access obligations on a middle mile project that it funded for the Karuk Tribe in Humboldt County, and six years ago it did the same for a route now owned by Crown Castle in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties. That project has been up and running for three years, and supports a growing ecosystem of independent broadband operations (see the image above).

The CPUC can change its open access middle mile policy on its own. Or perhaps the California legislature can be persuaded to do it. Senate bill 1130 is still alive at the state capitol. As presently written, it would make open access mandatory for any CASF-subsidised middle mile infrastructure. Either way, it needs to be done.

AT&T rejects California disaster response obligations

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

AT&T is striking back at covid–19 emergency relief measures adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission. Flanked by Verizon and T-Mobile (via the mobile industry’s lobbying front organisation), AT&T wants the CPUC to repeal rules that require the company to waive things like installation or remote call forwarding fees when people are forced to relocate because of the covid–19 emergency. Those are CPUC mandates that also apply to any other “housing or financial crisis due to a disaster”. AT&T calls that “an act in excess of the Commission’s jurisdiction”.

Those rules also obligate mobile telephone companies to deploy temporary cell sites and other equipment when disaster strikes a particular community, and to provide WiFi access “in areas where impacted wireless customers seek refuge” and mobile phones “for customers seeking shelter from a disaster to use temporarily at a county or city designated shelter”.

AT&T’s landline-oriented arguments against mandatory disaster relief boil down to the CPUC can’t tell us to do that, and if it involves VoIP service, the CPUC can’t tell us to do anything. This is AT&T longstanding position, and as a result it is fighting a multimillion dollar fine and accusations of obstreperous behavior during massive power outages last year. The company is unapologetic and makes the bizarre claim that “VoIP service is not a telephone service”.

The mobile industry’s lobbyists characterise the disaster response measures imposed by the CPUC as “unlawful”, because mobile telecoms are regulated by the federal government and because the Federal Communications Commission is trying, with varying degrees of success, to prevent any state or local control over broadband service.

AT&T and most other big, monopoly model telecoms companies stepped up with voluntary and temporary consumer relief offers during the covid–19 emergency. But unlike other regulated utilities, broadband providers and telcos don’t have to, as Frontier Communications’ refusal to match low income service offers shows. As lockdowns ease and people go back to work, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile don’t want the CPUC, or anyone else, interfering with whatever plans they have for recovering their covid–19 response costs and collecting from customers temporarily unable to pay their bills.

14 ISPs try to block competitors’ broadband upgrades in rural California

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Road closed 625

Update, 12 June 2020: I found another challenge that I missed the first time around. Valley Internet filed against Web Perception’s Sonoma/Napa project. Comcast also challenged it, so the count is still 34 projects out of 54 facing challenges, with a new total of 17 ISPs filing. I updated the list below, but the live list for CASF project tracking is here.

Update, 10 June 2020: A late notice, from Succeed, brings the total number of projects challenged to 34 out of 54, and the number of ISPs filing challenges to 16. The updated list is below. Going forward, I’ll be updating and tracking the project proposals and challenges here.

Update, 9 June 2020: Another challenge – by Exwire to Charter’s Kingswood Estates project – surfaced overnight. It’s now 15 ISPs challenging a total of 32 projects, with many of those projects facing multiple challenges.

More than half of the projects proposed for infrastructure subsidies from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) were challenged yesterday. Competing Internet service providers submitted various claims regarding their broadband offerings in at least some of the project areas proposed for 31 of the 54 grant applications submitted in May.

Thanks to lobbying by big monopoly model incumbents, like AT&T and Comcast, and their non-profit fellow travellers, CASF money can’t pay for broadband upgrades if service in a particular place is already available at dismal 6 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload speeds. There are other restrictions as well. The rules give ISPs a five week window to prepare and submit their challenges, and 14 did by the deadline. Or at least submitted public notifications that they did so. A summary and links to the filings are below. I’m not betting that the list is complete, though. Notifications, as opposed to the actual confidential filings, sometimes trickle in late.

Some of the challenges appear to be legitimate, but others range from petulant complaints to unenforceable promises of service Real Soon Now. Nine of the 14 challengers are wireless Internet service providers, including Digital Path, which submitted an even dozen protests, almost twice as many as any other ISP. Some of the challenges are based on the incorrect notion that areas that received money from the old federal Connect America Fund broadband subsidy program will be ineligible for CASF grants – that carve out is based on grant approvals, not application deadlines, and expires at the end of the month, long before any projects can be approved.

Three of the most prolific protestors – Charter Communications, Frontier Communications and Digital Path (Comcast is on that list too) – are also the companies that submitted the most project applications on their own behalf. AT&T did not challenge any projects, or at least hasn’t distributed public notifications to that effect.

California Public Utilities Commission staff have about five months to sort it all out. New procedures put into place last year only allow competitors one chance to block CASF funding for a broadband infrastructure project. Yesterday was it.

Links to the project proposals are here.

Challenges to CASF infrastructure grant applications, 8 June 2020

Number of
Challenges
ProjectApplicant                          Challenged by
2Bella VistaCharter CommunicationsDigital Path, ShastaBeam
1Kingswood EstatesCharter CommunicationsExwire
1Butte YubaDigital PathSucceed
1Fresno CountyDigital PathComcast
2Glenn CountyDigital PathComcast, Succeed
2Lake CountyDigital PathMediacom, North Coast
1Mendocino CountyDigital PathNorth Coast
1Plumas LassenDigital PathFrontier
1Sacramento CountyDigital PathFrontier
1Sutter PlacerDigital PathSucceed
1Tehama CountyDigital PathCharter
2Central Coast BroadbandEtheric NetworksCharter, Razzolink
1Kingswood WestExwireCharter
1Crescent CityFrontier CommunicationsCharter
1CuyamaFrontier CommunicationsGeolinks
1GarbervilleFrontier Communications101Netlink
2HerlongFrontier CommunicationsDigital Path, Plumas Sierra
1Lake IsabellaFrontier CommunicationsGeolinks
2Mad RiverFrontier Communications101Netlink, Velocity
2Northeast Phase 2Frontier CommunicationsDigital Path, Geolinks
2PiercyFrontier Communications101Netlink, Willits Online
5Mendocino CountyHunter Communications101Netlink, Comcast, Frontier, North Coast, Willits Online
1Buckeye/BannerNevada County FiberDigital Path
1Long ValleyPlumas Sierra TelecomsDigital Path
1Mohawk ValleyPlumas Sierra TelecomsDigital Path
1PortolaPlumas Sierra TelecomsDigital Path
1Scott RoadPlumas Sierra TelecomsGeolinks
1Sierra ValleyPlumas Sierra TelecomsDigital Path
3Southern LassenPlumas Sierra TelecomsDigital Path, Frontier, Geolinks
1Gigafy ArbuckleRace TelecommunicationsFrontier
2Gigafy Nevada CityRace TelecommunicationsCalnet, Digital Path
4Gigafy WilliamsRace TelecommunicationsComcast, Digital Path, Frontier, Succeed
2Sonoma/NapaWeb PerceptionComcast, Valley Internet
3West Sonoma CountyWiConduitComcast, Digital Path, Frontier

The Central Coast Broadband Consortium (CCBC) supported Charter’s San Benito County proposal and assisted Etheric Networks with its application. The Connected Capital Area Broadband Consortium (CCABC) assisted DigitalPath. I assisted the CCBC and the CCABC, and also kibitzed on other projects. I’m not a disinterested commentator. Take it for what it’s worth.

Cable, mobile companies fight rollback of perks they’ve paid California lawmakers big bucks to write

by Steve Blum • , , , ,

Special privileges that cable companies and mobile carriers have bought from the California legislature over the years could be rolled back a bit if two bills approved by the California senate’s energy, utilities and communications (EU&C) committee make it into law.

Senate bill 1058, authored by Ben Hueso (D – San Diego), would require “every Internet service provider” (as the legislative counsel’s digest put it) to “file an annual emergency operations plan” with the California Public Utilities Commission. Besides information about emergency operations and contact information for state and local officials, as currently written the bill effectively requires ISPs to offer “an affordable class of broadband Internet service” to people locked down or displaced by a disaster and to provide “capital expenditure plans for broadband expansion” to the CPUC annually.

Every ISP means just that. Any “business that provides broadband Internet access service” to any customer will have to comply. That prospect upset lobbyists for cable companies and mobile carriers, particularly. Their Sacramento front organisations led the opposition to the bill. Despite that, it was approved on a 10 to 3 party line vote.

SB 1069, carried by Hannah-Beth Jackson (D – Santa Barbara), is a bit more subtle, but will be equally, if not more, disruptive to the cozy regulatory carve outs that lobbyists for mobile carriers, like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, and cable companies, like Comcast, Charter Communications and Cox, have paid millions of dollars to lawmakers over the years to create and preserve.

On its face, the bill requires “telecommunications service” providers to deliver more and better information about “critical communications infrastructure” to state and local officials during a disaster. But it also ropes ISPs and broadband networks, respectively, into those categories by expanding the definition of telecommunications service to include voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service and the infrastructure – i.e. broadband networks – that carry it. That also brought howls of protest from the cable and mobile minions, who rightly fear that the change will breach the regulatory firewall between themselves and legacy copper telephone companies that they’ve spent so much money building.

It’s just a chip in the firewall, though. The Federal Communications Commission and, so far, federal courts perpetuate the fiction that identical functionality is a “telecommunications service” when provided via one type of technology – legacy telco copper – but is an “information service” when delivered over another type – Internet protocol-based broadband systems.

Both bills, along with SB 1130, which upgrades California minimum broadband standard to symmetrical 25 Mbps download and upload speeds, head to the California senate appropriations committee. The real work of the appropriations committee is done behind closed doors by legislative leadership, which makes it the preferred killing ground for bills that offend cash laden lobbyists.