COVID-19 May Reshape California Low-Income, Infrastructure Support Policies

"We’re all working extremely hard to respond to the COVID-19 crisis," Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said in a statement to us. "That response will require us to reconsider how we implement many of our programs" including CASF, she said. "Most immediate is what CASF can do to help people who don’t have Internet access get it." The agency is "shortening timelines and broadening eligibility" for its "approximately $10 million" adoption program, she said, and would "like to use this money for hotspots and equipment to expand Wi-Fi at libraries, schools, and hopefully entire neighborhoods, in ways that are safe and consistent with public health guidance." The commission is "working on areas without broadband service, especially those that have poor cell service. But this has been a problem for years and will be hard to address in months," she said.

The agency seeks comment on potential CASF actions like awarding adoption grants on a rolling basis, increasing upfront funding for adoption grantees, speedily making hot spots available and changing staff tasks, said Guzman Aceves in Thursday’s ruling in docket R.12-10-012. Comments on the COVID-19 question are due April 8, replies April 15. Questions on other CASF questions are due April 15, replies April 27.

The National Lifeline Association sought an emergency order pausing LifeLine de-enrollments due to non-usage. “We do not know why certain low-income Californians may not be using their LifeLine supported service at this time, perhaps they are saving their service for an emergency, but none of them needs to be de-enrolled from the LifeLine program during a state of emergency,” NaLA commented in docket R.20-02-008. Extend a March 19 ruling that suspended renewal requirements for 90 days due to COVID-19 (see 2003200014), the ETC group asked. Revamping the renewals process should be the first priority in the larger state LifeLine overhaul, said NaLA.

The LifeLine proceeding was to tee up a big policy question on whether to expand support to broadband and what to do about voice support. Commenters disagreed whether that should be the CPUC’s focus after coronavirus.

COVID-19 may increase how many people qualify for LifeLine, "elevating the need for the CPUC to focus on targeted issues that will most effectively and immediately enable participation,” said the California Cable and Telecommunications Association. CCTA said possible broadband support “raises numerous complex issues that will take resources away from resolution of the more urgent, discrete issues.”

Broadband support “may take on additional urgency in the face of an increased need for access to telecommunications services due to the current global pandemic,” countered the Center for Accessible Technology. School, library and workplace closings make in-home broadband even more necessary for low-income people, it said. If the CPUC expands support, it must broaden the contribution base to include broadband providers due to "a narrowing set" of telecom services paying in, it said.

Supporting broadband is most important, as long as the agency keeps voice support through December 2021 as federal support phases down, said CalTel and other small telcos. “This is not the time to risk making voice services unaffordable.” Many carriers are voluntarily protecting customers, and the CPUC "should create a forum for best practices in response to the current crisis and pursue changes in the midterm that will equip the LifeLine program to meet the evolving needs of low-income consumers.”

While it had proposed a pilot, TruConnect said COVID-19 should change the commission’s priorities to stabilizing the program and increasing participation. The LifeLine provider urged the CPUC to dedicate resources “to supporting the low-income residents of California who do not have access to affordable telecommunications devices” for telemedicine.