Industry Concerned on CPUC Affordability Metrics Plan

purpose of this proceeding should be to develop the metrics, not apply them,” AT&T commented Monday in docket R.18-07-006: The CPUC "lacks jurisdiction to set prices for wireless and broadband services” and consumers can get affordable broadband through the new federal affordable connectivity program. California lacks wireless jurisdiction and the CPUC addresses affordability through the state LifeLine program, said CTIA: competition keeps wireless service cheap. Applying the staff proposal "to communications services that are not rate-regulated telecommunications services would run counter to the Staff’s goal to bridge the digital divide,” said the California Cable and Telecommunications Association. "The Commission has expressly abstained from regulating the intrastate rates of nearly all competitive voice service providers” and “is precluded by law from regulating broadband prices, which are controlled by a competitive market.” CalTel and other small rural LECs agreed the agency lacks broadband authority. Limit using the metrics “to informing consumers in the Commission’s annual affordability report” and in the commission’s LifeLine proceeding, they said. Communications services mostly aren't rate-regulated, but the CPUC should consider affordability when providers submit merger and other kinds of applications, commented the Center for Accessible Technology. Applying an affordability framework could help the CPUC identify broadband projects for state funding, said the National Diversity Coalition. The Utility Reform Network agreed with CPUC staff that CASF could benefit from incorporating affordability metrics, but added that the commission should incorporate the framework in all of its communications decision-making processes. The agency should revise its proposal so the metric is used to “analyze affordability generally” rather than set prices for low-income broadband plans, said the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office.