As the states establish mechanisms for doling out billions of dollars in federal broadband subsidies, time is of the essence. Proposed legislation in California therefore would expedite the regulatory approval process via a 180-day shot clock.
A recent op-ed warns, however, that opposition from advocacy organizations more concerned with promoting municipal broadband than meeting funding deadlines threatens to leave significant amounts of money on the table – and, consequently, a significant number of Californians unnecessarily unserved.
In an August 4, 2022, opinion piece published by the Capitol Weekly, Jonathan Spalter, president and CEO of USTelecom | The Broadband Association, described $2 billion in last-mile subsidies from the Department of Treasury as "present[ing] a once-in-a-generation opportunity to expand the reach of affordable, high-speed broadband services throughout the Golden State."
Notably, however, the Treasury's Final Rule for the $350 billion State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) program clearly states that that $2 billion "may only be used for costs incurred within a specific time period, beginning March 3, 2021, with all funds obligated by December 31, 2024 and all funds spent by December 31, 2026."
Accordingly, Assembly Bill (AB) 2749 would require the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to "review each application and notify the applicant of its decision on or before 180 days from the date that the completed application was submitted." Should the CPUC fail to act within that timeframe or reach an agreement with the applicant to extend the deadline, after 180 days the "completed application shall be deemed approved."
But as Mr. Spalter wrote:
Unfortunately, some California advocacy organizations are attempting to stall the CPUC's broadband grant review process because they claim that the expeditious distribution of broadband funds disadvantages Government Owned Networks (GONs). These organizations are more concerned with supporting the creation of new GONs than getting the desperately needed, reliable infrastructure to underserved Californians.
Despite a well-documented track record devoid of financial viability, constitutional concerns, and countless other shortcomings, municipally owned-and-operated broadband projects undeniably have their champions. Here, however, it seems clear that those opposed to AB 2749 for reasons relating to the municipal broadband cause are missing the forest for the trees.
SLFRF money not spent by the end of 2026 must be returned, and an Assembly committee analysis reveals that, under normal circumstances, CPUC deliberations can drag on for up to a year and a half. AB 2749's 180-day shot clock would accelerate that decisionmaking process – and thereby decrease the odds that time runs out before federal subsidies can be leveraged to connect unserved Californians. On that basis alone, it warrants the backing of all who claim to support the goal of universal broadband access.
Posts
