Industry, Advocates Clash on California's Final BEAD Plan

While some argued the CPUC should prioritize fiber, others said continuing to favor that technology could jeopardize California’s chances of securing federal funding under NTIA's updated rules.

Despite the split, commenters agreed that the tight deadline demands quick action and regulatory clarity from the commission to avoid delays in awarding grants.

Tarana Wireless echoed the view of some advocacy organizations that mobile networks and low earth orbit satellite systems have limitations that "compromise their long-term sustainability as primary infrastructure for California's digitally underserved communities." The next-gen fixed wireless access service provider urged the CPUC to make a clear distinction between legacy mobile or orbit-first broadband plans and "purpose-built fixed wireless technologies" as it reviews new BEAD applications.

Similarly, CTIA echoed Tarana's calls to ensure that proposals for fixed wireless networks are given fair consideration. The group warned that continuing the state's fiber-first priority and other proposals counter to NTIA's restructuring notice is "likely to harm the possibility of California receiving broadband funding from NTIA."

However, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) noted that the BEAD program's statutory requirements "necessarily favor scalable fiber networks, even in the absence of NTIA's previous express preference for them." The group disagreed with CTIA's claim that fixed wireless projects are scalable, because fixed wireless and mobile networks "generally require fiber backhaul."

It's "questionable" whether satellite or fixed wireless technologies can meet the state's minimum standards, said the Center for Accessible Technology. Wireless providers haven't addressed the "capacity issues that are associated with fixed wireless service," the group said, urging the CPUC to require that applicants "directly meet their burden" to demonstrate that their technology meets minimum service requirements for a particular project.

"Communities do not experience fiber and wireless as interchangeable," said Small Business Utility Advocates. The group backed maintaining a fiber preference "where it offers long-term scalability and reliability." Any shift away from the technology "must be rooted in public interest [and] not industry experience." It also raised issue with ACA Connects' proposal for a "narrowly technical definition" of "scalability," warning that a "rigid framing could obscure meaningful evaluation of community-driven solutions that fall outside of industry orthodoxy."

Another industry concern is the requirement that states complete their application process within NTIA's 90-day timeframe. Comcast backed USTelecom's call for the CPUC to quickly clarify what modifications will be made to the state's BEAD plans, so applicants can familiarize themselves and prepare proposals. Comcast also cautioned against the Center for Accessible Technology's suggestion that all applicants submit entirely new applications, warning of delays and additional administrative burdens.

TURN also had "timing concerns" and agreed that the commission should expedite approval of its final BEAD proposal to meet the Sept. 4 deadline. CTIA likewise said the state "has much work to do to conform its BEAD process to NTIA’s new guidance, and little time to do so" but acknowledged that the new approach "will put California in a better position" to achieve its broadband goals.