Industry, Consumers Clash on Proposed Calif. PUC Home Broadband Pilot
California’s plan to launch a home broadband pilot under its LifeLine program received mixed reactions from industry and consumer advocates. Groups were split over legal authority, service standards and who should be required to participate in the program, which was proposed by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Commissioner Alice Reynolds and is expected to be considered during the agency's August 28 meeting.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The CPUC is considering offering a $20 monthly subsidy for standalone broadband and $30 for broadband bundled with voice. The three-year pilot aims to offset the loss of federal funds through the FCC's affordable connectivity program and gather data for potential permanent expansion under SB-716, which would amend LifeLine rules to include standalone broadband service (see 2506050055).
Groups were split on whether the CPUC could fund standalone broadband before state law explicitly authorizes it. AT&T and CTIA said the state's Moore Uniform Telephone Service Act limits LifeLine subsidies to services that include voice and urged the commission to wait until SB-716 passes. AT&T warned that if the commission adopts the program and SB-716 were to become law, that combination could "likely cause confusion among not only providers but also California LifeLine subscribers" because there would be two "competing and conflicting" programs.
Supporters, including the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF), disagreed and said that the CPUC has room to act now, calling the pilot a stopgap while lawmakers finalize changes. CETF said a delay would prolong affordability gaps for low-income households.
Another dispute concerns technology eligibility. The National Lifeline Association (NaLa) said the proposed minimum service standards (MSS) effectively shut out mobile providers, even though about 95% of LifeLine customers use wireless service. "No MSS are necessary because the competitive market will dictate what providers can make available to low-income households at no cost to the household," NaLa said.
Meanwhile, consumer advocates generally supported the 100/20 Mbps benchmark. The CPUC Public Advocates Office said MSS exemptions for low-cost plans could result in providers continuing to offer slower speeds without lowering prices. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) also backed maintaining the MSS and urged the CPUC to require that bundled voice plans also meet the standards. The group raised concerns with participating providers offering "minimal and insufficient voice plans."
A coalition of rural carriers called for flexibility in areas where infrastructure can’t support high speeds. It's "critical to provide exceptions for areas that are not currently equipped to meet the MSS due to facilities limitations," the carriers said. They proposed allowing the best available service of at least 4/1 Mbps to qualify in those areas.
Small rural carriers also objected to monthly usage reporting for unlimited-data plans, calling it unnecessary. They asked to use standard LifeLine consumer scripts for outreach instead of full advertisements. Other providers said the marketing rules are overly prescriptive and could force costly campaigns that don’t reflect how low-income customers actually learn about programs.
The CPUC will review the feedback before voting on the proposed decision. If adopted, the pilot would run for three years and be open to eligible low-income households statewide.