Industry Tells CPUC It Shouldn't 'Rush' Shifting Low-Income Support to Broadband

Households will no longer receive the federal ACP benefit after May 31, an FCC fact sheet says. The CPUC received comments Thursday on an April 23 emergency petition by The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office (PAO) seeking temporary bridge funding through the state LifeLine program. It would help low-income consumers facing the end of ACP for two years (see 2404240063). To do that, TURN and PAO asked the CPUC to revise an October 2020 decision on LifeLine-specific support amounts and minimum service standards. The groups proposed letting LifeLine participants temporarily apply state and federal low-income benefits to a stand-alone wireline broadband service, while the CPUC considers a long-term answer.

Separately, consumer advocates are asking the CPUC to revise two other decisions due to ACP’s expected ending (see 2404150062). Industry resisted those changes to stage agency-run grant programs (see 2405160055 and 2405140037).

The consumer advocates "raise important questions" about California LifeLine's future, "but their specific proposal is unduly prescriptive and unlawful,” Frontier Communications and Consolidated Communications commented together in docket R.20-02-008. The CPUC would violate the law by regulating prices, terms and conditions of broadband through the proposed mandate that LifeLine providers have a stand-alone broadband plan costing consumers no more than $15 monthly out-of-pocket and providing at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds, Frontier and Consolidated said.

"Rather than endorsing this rush to judgment," the CPUC "should further examine potential changes to the LifeLine program in this rulemaking and provide an opportunity for all parties to more comprehensively comment on the policy, legal, and mechanical issues that would be involved in expanding LifeLine to broadband,” the two mid-sized telcos said. They stressed they "are concerned about the termination of ACP.” That and other reasons "make it reasonable to consider transformative adjustments to the LifeLine program, which remains principally a voice support mechanism,” they said. But making LifeLine a broadband program may ultimately require state legislation, the carriers said.

However, small LECs support expediting “consideration of an expansion of California LifeLine to broadband,” said a coalition including Calaveras Telephone and Volcano Telephone. "Petitioners’ specific proposal presents a variety of legal, policy, and practical issues that militate against granting the Petition as filed, but the Small LECs would like to work with Petitioners and other parties to develop a thoughtful, balanced approach to applying [LifeLine support] to broadband services.” Small LECs “share some of the urgency” voiced by the consumer advocates, “but the evolution of the LifeLine program toward supporting broadband is too consequential and multifaceted to address through a petition for modification.”

The CPUC should prioritize authorizing support for stand-alone broadband services "without attempting to prescribe the terms or pricing of those offerings,” the small LECs said. Also, the CPUC should streamline the process for designating ISPs as eligible telecom carriers to "allow for broader access to federal Lifeline support,” the group said.

CTIA understand the concern about ACP ending, but TURN and PAO’s petition contains "significant flaws,” the wireless industry association said. Supporting broadband through state LifeLine would be inconsistent with the Moore Universal Telephone Service Act. That is the 1983 state law that established the low-income program for supporting voice services, CTIA said. Also, the petition doesn't say how "households would afford voice service if [LifeLine] subsidies are instead shifted to their fixed standalone broadband service,” CTIA said. If the CPUC grants the petition, the commission should allow consumers to select fixed wireless broadband service. The consumer groups had proposed supporting only wireline internet.

The Moore Act required support for basic telephone, not broadband service, and the CPUC "has consistently held that a California LifeLine basic service offering must include the ability to make and receive calls,” agreed AT&T, saying a statutory change would be required to change this. If the CPUC makes a temporary stand-alone broadband offering, don’t make provider participation mandatory, added AT&T: That would align with the FCC’s approach to federal Lifeline. Also, AT&T said that the proposed $15 price cap would be “improper rate regulation” -- and not the kind of state affordability program that the FCC’s recent open internet order said wouldn't be preempted (see 2405070077).

ACP worked much better than California LifeLine, noted Charter Communications: Yet the petition “ignores ACP’s success, and instead presents a proposal that would attempt to shoehorn standalone broadband into an antiquated, rigid, and complex structure.” The proposed LifeLine changes “would negatively impact consumer flexibility and choice, which would ultimately risk limiting enrollments by low-income Californians,” the cable company added.

Cox condemned the petition as "misplaced" because the CPUC "is already evaluating the LifeLine program overall.” With multiple proposals pending in the docket to update LifeLine minimum service standards and related support amounts, consumer groups’ petition “is neither necessary nor timely," Cox said.

TURN and PAO's petition won the backing of another consumer advocacy group, the Center for Accessible Technology. "This temporary bridge funding would reduce disruption and loss of service for an interim two year period, during which the Commission can develop a longer-term solution for affordable access to" broadband, said CforAT. While efforts are ongoing to get more congressional funding for ACP, the CPUC shouldn’t delay in finding a way for LifeLine customers to keep their broadband, it said. “If additional funding is secured for the ACP, the Commission could pause its efforts. But given the current state of the program, the Commission should act quickly to provide an interim solution for customers poised to lose access to affordable internet service.”

Meanwhile, TURN replied to industry objections to the group’s separate petition asking the CPUC to pause state grants until it modifies rules for the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband infrastructure account. Since filing that request April 12, the CPUC released three draft resolutions that would approve California funding for broadband projects that partly rely on participating in ACP to meet the state's affordability requirements, TURN said in docket R.20-08-021. "Prompt action … is necessary for the Commission to continue to approve grants that include affordable offerings and do not rely on a subsidy program that will not exist by the time the applications are approved."