Frontier Backs CPUC Edit to 1 Condition, Asks to Tweak Others
Frontier Communications supported a proposed edit by the California Public Utilities Commission to a condition adopted in the agency's March 18 OK of Frontier’s bankruptcy reorganization. The revised condition would require the provider to build fiber-to-the-premise to 150,000 locations in…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
places with a maximum internal rate of return of 20%, with at least 10% of those locations in places where Frontier is the only fixed broadband provider. It would also require that at least 10% of Frontier funds allocated to that fiber buildout go to locations outside urbanized areas (see 2103290011). In Monday comments in docket A.20-05-010, Frontier urged commissioners to adopt the edit at its April 15 meeting, saying it “will further the Commission’s goal of improving broadband availability in underserved areas.” The CPUC’s Public Advocates Office and The Utility Reform Network also supported the proposed revision. Frontier asked the CPUC to change two other conditions from its March OK (see 2103180064). Remove local governments from a condition requiring that tribes and localities get a right of first offer to buy any property divested by the carrier in their areas, Frontier said. Don't retroactively apply a new 25/3 Mbps speed standard for areas funded by the California Advanced Services Fund where Frontier completed projects to the previous 10/1 Mbps standard, it said. The California Emerging Technology Fund agreed the CPUC shouldn’t retroactively apply 25/3 Mbps. Communications Workers of America urged the CPUC to scrap the first offer right for both tribes and local governments because it "threatens employee jobs and could degrade service quality.”