ISPs Sound Alarm on Draft Changes to CASF Challenges

vote on a proposed decision to adjust rules for the broadband support program (see 2210030069). Proposed challenge process changes would “result in legal and technical error,” said the California Cable and Telecommunications Association. "Comparing a challenger’s existing service plans with the plans proposed in an application is inapt and practically impossible," including because the proposed plan might not materialize, said CCTA. Requiring challengers to provide billing statements for all customers in the challenge area raises privacy concerns and would make it tougher to submit timely challenges, and requiring them "to commit to serving all locations 'in perpetuity' is vague and holds similarly situated carriers to different standards," it said. The proposed challenge process “remains deeply flawed, and should be reconsidered to avoid enabling inefficient overbuilding projects just because existing providers cannot reasonably navigate the rigid and expedited challenge procedure,” said Frontier Communications: It's too fast and includes "tangential" requirements to the task of ensuring adequate infrastructure. Proposed changes would put "unreasonable and unjustified burdens on potential challengers that are likely to invite overbuilding projects and encourage a misuse of limited CASF resources simply because challengers cannot efficiently navigate the onerous challenge process or because the Commission rejects valid challenges based on policy issues or tangential information that does not relate to whether an area is already adequately served,” said CalTel and other small telcos. The Utility Reform Network, Center for Accessible Technology and the CPUC’s Public Advocates Office mostly supported the draft rules. They "implement statutory requirements and are tailored to encourage providers to use the public funds to serve communities that have historically been left behind, including low-income and Environmental and Social Justice communities,” said TURN.