CPUC Member: Don't Waste Time on Cable's Broadband Concerns

Cable’s protest is a distraction and “waste of time,” Guzman Aceves said. “They’re trying to create this confusion with our legislators ... who are working on a million issues right now.” The commissioner most worries this will distract from the legislative effort to extend the California Advanced Services Fund, which will get broadband infrastructure out in the long term, she said. Two major CASF update bills could get floor votes as soon as this week (see 2109010079). “I don’t know what [CCTA’s] motivation is here, but it obviously is distracting from something, and the only thing I can think of” is the CASF update, she said.

“The most deceptive statement they’re making is that we are not prioritizing ... the worst first,” said the commissioner. Federal funding rules are clear that states must prioritize 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload, and all California commissioners are committed to the unserved, she said. CCTA’s McIntyre previewed cable’s concern at a Middle-Mile Advisory Committee meeting, prompting some legislator questions (see 2108190046). The committee next meets Sept. 15. Legislators have a direct communication line to the commission, said Guzman Aceves, saying she hopes they come to the agency with any questions about the CCTA-raised issue. The state needs cable’s “support and collaboration” since “we’re interested in optimizing their infrastructure so we can take this funding further.”

The commissioner is "incorrect," McIntyre emailed Tuesday. "The CPUC has indicated in their current proceeding that they are focused on identifying unserved areas as communities with Internet service speeds at 100 Mbps."

The CPUC is expected to report middle-mile location recommendations to the California Department of Technology later this year, as required by the $6 billion broadband law known as SB-156. The agency received comments Friday in docket R.20-09-001 on a list of possible locations (see 2108060037).

The CPUC’s “approach is at odds with the 'worst first' strategy the Legislature adopted in SB 156 to ensure that the $3.25 billion Middle-Mile Network results in last-mile connection of households that lack service,” CCTA commented. Charter Communications said the “law is clear that funding must target projects in unserved areas, and only projects that would lead to last-mile connections,” but the proposal would spend about $26 million on nearly 500 miles in Los Angeles County, even though 99.4% of its population can get 100 Mbps and 99.5% can get at least 25/3 Mbps. Los Angeles is “just one of several highly-connected urban counties where the Middle Mile Proposal seeks to add duplicative routes,” Charter said.

Frontier Communications agreed the CPUC shouldn’t recommend locations based on access to 100 Mbps downloads, though the telco also urged the agency to prioritize symmetrical speeds provided by fiber. The law explicitly focused on 25 Mbps, Frontier said. The CPUC approach assumes that lack of 100 Mbps is due to lack of middle mile, but "there is no evidence that absence of middle mile correlates to high-speed broadband access," it said. “The primary impediment to high-speed broadband is the cost of the last mile facilities.”

"By focusing on households without access to 100 Mbps” the CPUC’s “proposed construction would misallocate resources to urban and suburban areas that likely have quite a sufficient amount of existing middle-mile infrastructure,” agreed CalTel and other rural LECs.

The Center for Accessible Technology supported focusing on counties with a disproportionately high number of unserved households and said the CPUC should also prioritize deployment in historically redlined neighborhoods. The Utility Consumers Action Network urged the CPUC to look more granularly than on a county-wide basis. In San Diego County, only 4% meet the CPUC’s criteria, but there are tribal lands and other significant places that are unserved, it said. Just because middle mile exists doesn’t mean it's affordable or that rates, terms and conditions are reasonable, UCAN added. Criteria for reviewing existing middle-mile infrastructure “should include a demonstration that the technology deployed on the route is modern and well-maintained,” commented The Utility Reform Network.

The CPUC should “prioritize the counties with greater population density where the highest total populations of rural residents live,” said the Greenlining Institute. Rural County Representatives of California commented, “Although the population density may be lower in rural areas, in some cases the need may be greater.” Many rural areas seasonally have high tourism, and they “are also the regions of the state most susceptible to natural disasters, such as wildfires, making the ability to receive real-time updates and information a necessity.”

Consider upload speeds, not just download, when determining where middle mile is needed, said San Francisco. Check latency, too, said the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Setting metrics too low “would allow the delivery of basic broadband access via microwave or satellite to prevent the delivery of fiber optics,” EFF said. Areas lacking 5G are likely to be places with no fiber, it added.

Some commenters urged more collaboration. “Many regional and local governments have parallel broadband infrastructure planning and deployment efforts underway that should be integrated into the CPUC’s proposed network,” said the San Diego Association of Governments. State "investment in a middle-mile government-owned network needs to be approached by the" CPUC and other state agencies "with an intensity of focus and sustained, engaged collaboration akin to the Manhattan Project, but with full openness and transparency,” said the California Emerging Technology Fund.