Advocates Support Calif. Affordability Rules for Federal Funding
Low-income and community advocates supported consumer groups' petition to require low-cost broadband plans for all Californians. The California Public Utilities Commission received responses Wednesday to an amended petition in docket R.20-02-008. As they did earlier this month on the original…
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.
petition (see 2208020033), ISPs warned that the state could risk losing broadband funding if the CPUC modified an April decision on rules for the state’s $2 billion last-mile federal funding account (FFA). Granting the petition "would ensure that the families who need access to affordable and reliable internet the most would finally be able to receive it without having to choose between paying their bills, grocery shopping or paying their internet bill,” said Alliance for a Better Community, a social justice nonprofit. “It would also aid in ending preferential treatment for high income broadband users over the needs of low-income users." LA-Tech.org, a nonprofit that helps low-income people find tech internships, also supported the change: "Low Income communities could be priced out of reliable broadband internet, depriving them of equitable access to health services and remote job opportunities.” If the CPUC fails to protect affordability, “the state risks funding high-speed broadband infrastructure projects that do not result in affordable service for unserved and underserved communities,” said the Institute for Local Self-Reliance: Reject any provider arguments to “wait to study the problem or collect data.” USTelecom countered that the “amended petition is procedurally improper” because it “fails to demonstrate new facts, materially changed circumstances, or misconceptions of law or fact.” Contrary to the public interest, the consumer groups' proposed changes would delay FFA implementation and discourage participation, which would make it harder for the state to use federal American Rescue Plan Act funding, the industry group said.