TURN Says It's Time for Calif. Commission to Find ACP Successor

Free Press, Public Knowledge, the Schools, Health & Libraries Coalition and 268 other entities urged House lawmakers Monday to begin signing a discharge petition Thursday (H.Res. 1119) that seeks to force a House floor vote on the ACP Extension Act (HR-6929/S-3565), which would appropriate $7 billion to keep the ailing FCC broadband fund running through the end of FY 2024 (see 2404100075). HR-6929 supporters can’t begin seeking signatures on the discharge petition until Thursday because that will mark the end of a seven-legislative-day waiting period after H.Res. 1119’s filing last week. The impending exhaustion of ACP’s existing funding means “the internet bills for one out of every six homes in the U.S. are going to rise because Congress has thus far failed to appropriate more funding to keep those households online with ACP support. Just a few weeks after that, the program will lapse entirely,” the pro-ACP entities said in a letter to lawmakers. “We urge you to sign the discharge petition put forth by Rep. Clarke because time is of the essence. We cannot let these families lose their vital connections merely because Congress failed to vote on an immensely popular bill with a bipartisan majority’s support.”

TURN sought changes to grant rules for the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) broadband infrastructure account in a Friday petition in docket R.20-08-021. In a Monday petition (docket R.20-09-001) along similar lines, TURN and the CPUC’s independent Public Advocates Office suggested changes to the CPUC’s federal funding account (FFA), which uses broadband funding from the U.S. government. In both cases, TURN asked the CPUC to pause making awards until it updates rules to account for ACP’s end and to direct applicants to amend already filed applications. TURN asked to modify 2022 decisions on each program in which the CPUC committed to identifying a successor low-income subsidy program if ACP were to end. That time has come, TURN pointed out in both petitions.

TURN’s requests are about “working with what we have” in California to try to “get a benefit that’s generally commensurate with the ACP,” Fitzpatrick told us. While TURN would welcome Congress extending ACP, “we don’t really know if and when that’s going to happen,” he said. TURN seeks to “lay the groundwork for minimizing disruption” when possibly full monthly benefits end in two weeks and partial reimbursements in May, he said. “The end of the ACP could be a pretty significant moment for consumers,” who could see price increases of $30 per month, he added.

But the California Broadband and Video Association said TURN “suggests an ill-advised, off-the-cuff approach that could result in a series of significant negative unintended consequences,” President Janus Norman said in a statement Monday. “The foundation of the ACP’s success is its programmatic structure, and -- should the need to develop a successor program arise -- California should implement a similar structure in order for any new program to achieve the level of success seen with ACP,” he said. “The complexity of this task, the necessity of stakeholder input, and the impact on existing programs warrant a full thoughtful discussion and regulatory process.” CalBroadband is still advocating for continuing ACP, added Norman. AT&T declined to comment and the California Communications Association didn’t comment.

The CPUC should halve the usual 30 days it gives for replies to petitions for modification, TURN said in Friday and Monday motions accompanying each petition. If granted, comments would be due April 29 on the CASF changes and April 30 on the FFA changes. “A shorter timeframe is necessary given the rapidly approaching end of [ACP] funding, the need to modify [broadband infrastructure] program rules to account for the end of ACP, and the ongoing [grant] application cycle,” said the Friday motion. The commission already approved some of the 70 pending CASF broadband grant applications, TURN noted. “Should the Commission continue to approve applications that rely on ACP participation to satisfy the program’s affordability criteria, then the end of the ACP would effectively nullify the protections afforded by the program’s Pricing Commitment and Funding Criteria requirements.”

The CPUC should require carrier of last resort (COLR) applicants in the CASF broadband infrastructure program “to provide a bundled voice and broadband plan that qualifies for both California and federal Lifeline subsidies,” said TURN’s Friday petition. Those COLRs should have "to participate in federal Lifeline for the life of their project's infrastructure,” it said. Combining state LifeLine's $19 monthly benefit with federal Lifeline's $9.25 would garner consumers $28.25, which is nearly ACP's $30, TURN said. Target COLRs, the consumer group said: They receive funding from the California High-Cost Fund, "are legally obligated to honor all reasonable requests for telephone service in areas where they are designated COLRs" and are required to participate in state LifeLine. “This additional requirement is not burdensome for COLR applicants.”

Require non-COLR applicants "to offer a plan that meets or exceeds the federal Lifeline broadband minimum speed and data allowance standards for $15 per month for the life of their project’s infrastructure,” TURN added. The current requirement is five years.

In Monday’s petition on the federal account, TURN asked the CPUC to “modify the FFA rules to require all grantees to offer a broadband plan to eligible low-income customers that meets or exceeds the existing FFA and federal Lifeline broadband minimum standards for a total customer copayment of no more than $15 a month for the life of their project’s infrastructure.” The group additionally proposed COLR requirements like those in the Friday petition.

The CPUC should let tribes determine affordability measures for their communities, said TURN in both petitions, noting tribal customers get $75 monthly from ACP and will be disproportionately affected by the program’s end. Also in both petitions, TURN said the CPUC should “retain the option” to change its affordability requirements if there are more changes to federal programs.

Sustaining affordable internet is a must, said McPeak, whose organization CETF has led outreach efforts to sign up low-income Californians for ACP. CPUC commissioners and staff are talking about rules to implement the state’s NTIA-approved digital equity plan, she said. The state legislature also should respond to ACP’s possible end by passing two pending CETF-backed bills about broadband affordability: SB-1179 and AB-1588 (see 2401110047), said McPeak: Both would require ISPs to offer $30 monthly plans with 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload speeds.

The CPUC didn’t comment Friday on its response to ACP possibly ending. In recent weeks, some commissions in other states have alerted consumers via news releases about the uncertain program. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission encourages “households who currently receive the ACP benefit to research other assistance programs available to help with broadband assistance,” including federal Lifeline, the PUC said March 25. Similarly, the Michigan Public Service Commission on April 3 suggested that consumers plan ahead and consider joining federal Lifeline.