Consumer Groups Condemn Cable Petition on Public Housing Grants

The CPUC’s May resolution awarded $1.4 million in California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband public housing account (BPHA) grants to 19 projects (see 2212160028). The agency rejected a challenge by Charter Communications claiming residents already had access to free service. “Because the ACP benefit subsidizes the service for eligible residents who apply for the subsidy, Charter is not offering free service; the free service is being subsidized by the ACP, so that eligible residents may incur no cost expenses,” it said.

CalBroadband doesn't want to overturn the awards or the specific rejection of Charter’s challenge. The association “seeks updates” to the resolution to make sure it aligns with a May CPUC decision updating rules for public housing and other CASF accounts (see 2205190053) “and what specifically can be considered ‘free service.’” The resolution’s "characterization of 'free broadband service' is unsupported, contravenes Commission precedent, and would hinder the State’s broadband deployment goals,” it said.

Remove language from the resolution saying broadband services that are free due to ACP or other subsidies don't count, said CalBroadband. "Consistent with the Commission’s goals to leverage public and private funding, offering ACP or any other available funding support does not disqualify BPHA applicants from leveraging these resources to offer free broadband service,” it said. “BPHA applications should not be approved where there is evidence of existing free service that leverages subsidies and is available to all residents."

The Utility Reform Network will oppose CalBroadband’s petition, said Ashley Salas, TURN telecom regulatory and policy attorney. “The cable industry seeks to eliminate low-income consumer protections for residents in public housing,” the consumer advocate said. “If cable had its way, it would effectively prohibit California from providing grants to reduce the cost of broadband services to an affordable price point for public housing residents.”

CalBroadband aims “to create an enormous loophole for its members,” said Paul Goodman, Center for Accessible Technology legal counsel. BPHA rules “require that an applicant commit to providing service at no cost to low-income households.” Charter committed only to providing $30 monthly services offset by the $30 ACP subsidy, said the consumer advocate. If ACP funds run out or Congress doesn’t extend the program, low-income households “would be stuck” paying $30 a month.

The CPUC’s May BPHA decision never said providers had "to subsidize the service themselves,” argued CalBroadband. It was “silent as to how zero out-of-pocket costs for the resident customer is achieved. The definition focuses on whether the resident will have any out-of-pocket costs -- not on how the BPHA applicant is able to achieve zero out-of-pocket costs for the resident.” Providing free broadband using subsidies is consistent with California law and CPUC precedent, it said: “Rather than limiting the reach of the ACP program, the BPHA rules should be permissive and encourage its utilization.”

Meanwhile, the CPUC postponed some CASF deadlines by one month. The agency moved back infrastructure account dates due to “delay caused by late submittal of multiple service providers’ data necessary for the state broadband map (see 2206160065), Executive Director Rachel Peterson said in a Tuesday letter. Infrastructure account applications are now due May 1, with challenges due June 5.