ONE AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US
AT THE COMMITTEE OF
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCES
FIRST HEARING OF THE YEAR.
WELCOME MY NAME IS TASHA
BOERNER HORVATH AND I SERVE AS
THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE
JOINING ME TODAY ON THE DIET OR
IN THE ROOM IS VICE CHAIR
PATERSON AND MY COLLEAGUE
THREE OF US AND OTHER COLLEAGUES
FROM THE COMMITTEE JOINING US
THROUGHOUT THE HEARING. I ALSO
HAVE WITH US. EMILIO PEREZ,
CHIEF CONSULTANT FOR
COMMUNICATIONS AND CONVEYANCE
COMMITTEE. AS WE BEGIN OUR FIRST
HEARING. I'D LIKE TO THANK
SPEAKER ANTHONY RENDON FOR
APPOINTING ME TO THIS IMPORTANT
COMMITTEE, ESPECIALLY AT THIS
PIVOTAL TIME IN ADDRESSING THE
DIGITAL DIGITAL DIVIDE. 30 YEARS
AGO. I REMEMBER SITTING WITH MY
DAD WHO WAS A COMPUTER SCIENCE
PROFESSOR, AND HE WAS WORKING ON
THIS AREA OF EDUCATION, EQUITY
AND, UM, TECHNOLOGY 30 YEARS
AGO, WE WERE AT THE DINNER TABLE
TALKING ABOUT THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE, AND IT'S REALLY
UNFORTUNATE THAT 30 YEARS LATER
, UM, WE'RE STILL HAVING THAT
CONVERSATION. THERE CONTINUES TO
BE A GREAT FOCUS ON CLOSING THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE AND ENSURING
DIGITAL EQUITY BOTH FROM THIS
LEGISLATURE AND THE NEWMAN
ADMINISTRATION. I'D LIKE TO
THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR
CONTINUED SUPPORT ON THESE
ISSUES WITH THAT. I'D LIKE TO
TURN IT OVER THE VICE CHAIR FOR
ANY INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS,
FOLLOWED BY ANY INTRODUCTORY
COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU JUST
ECHOING, UH, THE CHAIR HERE.
BEEN HERE FOR 10 YEARS. WE'RE
STILL TALKING ABOUT DIGITAL
DIVIDE. I'M GOING TO HAVE SOME,
UH DIRECT QUESTIONS THAT GO TO
THE HEART OF ALL OF THIS TO THE
BèC. AND ALSO WE LET'S GET THIS
DONE. BECAUSE I THINK IF WE
DON'T GET IT DONE ON TIME, A LOT
OF THAT MONEY GOES AWAY, AND A
LOT OF THE URBAN AND RURAL
TENSIONS COME BACK. SO YOU'LL
HEAR FROM ME LATER. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S REVIS. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS?
UM THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
BOERNER HORVATH AND VICE HER.
PATTERSON UM, JUST I'M NEW TO
THIS COMMITTEE. UM EXCITED TO
LEARN MORE ABOUT ISSUES RELATED
TO DIGITAL EQUITY DIGITAL DIVIDE
, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SERVING
UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP. YEAH.
THANK YOU MEMBERS FOR YOUR
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS. I'D LIKE
TO REFOCUS OUR ATTENTION ON THE
PRIMARY REASON WE HAVE CONVENED
THIS HEARING, WHICH IS
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT. AS WE ALL
KNOW, IN 2021 THIS LEGISLATURE
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NEWMAN
UH, NEWSOME ADMINISTRATION MADE
HISTORY, UH, HISTORIC $6 BILLION
INVESTMENT IN BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS THROUGH
SENATE BILL 1 56. TWO BILLION
WAS ALLOCATED TO THE CAL
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION FOR LAST MILE
BROADBAND PROGRAM. A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THE MONEY WAS FEDERAL
FUNDING WITH STRICT TIMELINES
AND GUIDELINES ON HOW IT HOW IT
WAS TO BE SPENT. AS THE CPUC
MOVES AHEAD AND IMPLEMENTING ALL
THE PROGRAM FUNDED ALL THE
PROGRAMS THAT WERE FUNDED IN
THAT LEGISLATION. I AM COMMITTED
TO HAVING THIS COMMITTEE PLAYS
STRONG OVERSIGHT ROLE. TODAY'S
HEARING WILL FOCUS SPECIFICALLY
ON THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT
FF A OF THE CALIFORNIA ADVANCED
SERVICES FUND. DURING TODAY'S
HEARING WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO HEAR FROM THE CPUC AND TO
PROVIDE UP AND HAVE THEM PROVIDE
AN UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION AND
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM OUR
MEMBERS. WE'LL ALSO HEAR FROM
STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED WITH THIS
IMPLEMENTATION. WELL, I IMAGINE
A LOT OF THE TESTIMONY AND
QUESTIONS WILL BE ABOUT THE
RECENTLY RELEASED PRIORITY AREA
MAPS. THERE'S BEEN A STRONG
REACTION FROM THE PUBLIC AND
MEMBERS. UM OF THIS COMMITTEE,
AND THERE'S STILL UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS
TOWARDS FULLY OPENING A FUNDING
ROUND. BUT BEFORE WE GET BEGIN,
WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF
HOUSEKEEPING. UM IF ANY MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ROOM WOULD
LIKE TO COMMENT, I WILL INVITE
YOU TO APPROACH THAT MICROPHONE
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I'D
LIKE TO ASK THE PUBLIC, NOT
TOUCH THE MICROPHONE. YOU CAN
EXIT THE HEARING ROOM ONCE
YOU'VE DONE YOU'VE YOU'RE DONE
COMMENTING OR RETURN TO YOUR
SEAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COOPERATION AS WE IMPLEMENT
METHODS TO CONTINUE TO SERVE THE
PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA WHILE ALSO
BEING MINDFUL AND RESPECTFUL OF
PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS WE ALL
SHOULD FACE PERSONALLY, I DON'T
WANT TO GET SICK. SO THANKS. UM
NOW LET'S COVER THE GROUND RULES
FOR APPROPRIATE COMMENTS. I
DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA ALL GET
RILED UP TODAY. BUT YOU NEVER
KNOW. THE ASSEMBLY HAS
EXPERIENCED A NUMBER OF
DISRUPTIONS TO COMMITTEE AND
FLOOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS. UM CONDUCT THAT
DISRUPTS, DISTURBS OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDES. THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF
THIS HEARING IS PROHIBITED. SUCH
CONDUCT MAY INCLUDE TALKING OR
MAKING LOUD NOISES FROM THE
AUDIENCE, UTTERING LOUD
THREATENING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE
SPEAKING LONGER THAN THE TIME
ALLOTTED EXTENDED DISCUSSIONS OF
MATTERS NOT RELATED TO THE
SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING AND ANY
OTHER DISRUPTIVE ACTS TO ADDRESS
THE DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I WILL
TAKE THE FOLLOWING STEPS IF ANY
INDIVIDUAL DISRUPTS OUR HEARING
PROCESS. ABLE DIRECT THEM TO
STOP AND WARNED THEM THAT
CONTINUE. DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT
IN REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. I WILL ALSO DOCUMENT
ON RECORD THE INDIVIDUAL
INVOLVED IN THE NATURE OF THE
DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT. I MAY
TEMPORARY TEMPORARILY RECESS.
THE HEARING OF THE CONDUCT DOES
NOT STOP. I WILL REQUEST THE
ASSISTANCE OF THE SERGEANTS AND
ESCORTING THE INDIVIDUAL FROM
THE CAPITOL BUILDING. SO WITH
THAT. WE'LL NOW BEGIN THE
OVERSIGHT PORTION OF THE HEARING
FOR PANEL ONE. WE HAVE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION PRESIDENT HERE TODAY.
OR ALICE MUNRO, PRESIDENT OF THE
CPUC AND ROB ROB OSBORNE,
DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
DIVISION OF THE CPC MEMBERS WILL
ASK YOU TO HOLD YOUR SUBSTANCE
SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS UNTIL THE
END OF YOUR PRESENTATIONS. SO
I'D LIKE TO INVITE UP PRESIDENT
REYNOLDS AND DIRECTOR OSBORNE AT
THIS TIME.
HMM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND
YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR BOERNER HORVATH
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR INVITING ME HERE
TODAY TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON
THE C P. U. C S IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA ADVANCED
SERVICES FUND FEDERAL FUNDING
ACCOUNT. I'M JOINED BY ROBERT
OSBORNE, THE DIRECTOR OF CPCS
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION, WHO
WILL BE DESCRIBING OUR
IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS IN MORE
DETAIL. AS YOU NOTED, MADAM
CHAIR IN 2021, THE LEGISLATURE
AND THE GOVERNOR COMMITTED TO A
HISTORIC $6 BILLION INVESTMENT
IN BROADBAND FOR ALL, INCLUDING
FUNDING FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT TO
SUPPORT TO ADDRESS ACCESSIBILITY
GAPS THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
ADVANCED SERVICES FUND FEDERAL
FUNDING SUB ACCOUNT. THIS
INVESTMENT IS THE SINGLE LARGEST
PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE STATES.
SPECIFIC TO THE CPU. SEE THE
LEGISLATURE ALLOCATED $2 BILLION
TOWARD LAST MILE BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE FEDERAL
FUNDING ACCOUNT THAT WE ARE HERE
TO TALK ABOUT TODAY, COUPLED
WITH AN ADDITIONAL $2 BILLION
FOR OTHER PROGRAMS, INCLUDING A
NEW LOAN LOSS, RESERVE FUND AND
EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING
TRADITIONAL CALIFORNIA ADVANCED
SERVICES FUND FOR BROADBAND
ADOPTION, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
DIGITAL EQUITY. THE INTENT OF
THESE PROGRAMS IS CLEAR. FOR TOO
LONG, MANY COMMUNITIES HAVE HAD
NO OR INADEQUATE BROADBAND
SERVICE, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE
TO BE OVERLOOKED IF THE IF LEFT
SOLELY TO MARKET FORCES WITHOUT
STATE SUPPORT. YOU MENTIONED
MADAM CHAIR THE LONG TERM NATURE
OF THIS PROBLEM. WE RECOGNIZE
THAT ATTEMPTS TO BRIDGE THE
DIGITAL DIVIDE HAVE BEEN
UNDERTAKEN IN THE PAST, BUT WE
ALWAYS SEEM TO BE PLAYING CATCH
UP. SOME COMMUNITIES HAVE
HISTORICALLY BEEN LEFT OUT OF
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS, AND USUALLY, THESE
COMMUNITIES ARE LOW INCOME,
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES OR
RURAL AREAS THAT ARE LESS
PROFITABLE TO SERVE. ALTHOUGH
THE CPU CS PROGRAMS ALONG WITH
THE EFFORTS OF OUR SISTER AGENCY
, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY WILL GO A LONG WAY IN
ADDRESSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.
WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THESE
PROGRAMS ON THEIR OWN WON'T BE
ENOUGH TO FULLY ADDRESS THE
SIGNIFICANT BROADBAND ACCESS
NEEDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
WHICH MAKES THE CAREFUL
MANAGEMENT AVAILABLE FANS EVEN
MORE CRITICAL. WITH THE
LEGISLATURE'S SUPPORT AND
DIRECTION IN SB 1 56. THE CPUC
IS TARGETING THIS NEW
GENERATIONAL INVESTMENT TOWARDS
HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE NOT SERVED
AT MINIMUM SPEEDS AND CHARTING A
NEW PATH FOR THE STATE'S
BROADBAND PROGRAMS WERE DOING
THAT THROUGH SEVERAL EFFORTS.
FIRST WE'RE COLLECTING AND USING
MORE ACCURATE AND GRANULAR
INFORMATION. SECOND WE'RE
INCORPORATING LESSONS LEARNED TO
AVOID THE PITFALLS OF PAST
BROADBAND PROGRAMS. THIRD WE'RE
INCREASING STAFF CAPACITY,
INCLUDING BROADBAND CASEWORKERS
TO DO DIRECT OUTREACH TO
COMMUNITIES FOURTH, WE'RE
DEPLOYING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GRANTS TO HELP COMMUNITIES
DESIGN NETWORKS THAT THEY KNOW
THEY NEED BASED ON THE UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH LOCAL
AREA. AND FIFTH. WE'RE
DEVELOPING A MODERN ONLINE
MANAGEMENT PLATFORM TO RECEIVE
AND EVALUATE BROADBAND PROJECT
APPLICATIONS. THESE PREPARATIONS
ARE VITAL TO ENSURING THE
EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT
DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
THAT WILL BE USED TO FUND UP TO
100% OF BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE
COSTS TO CONNECT THOSE
CALIFORNIANS MOST IN NEED OF
BROADBAND ACCESS. YOU'LL BE
HEARING FROM MR OSBORNE
REGARDING SPECIFIC STEPS THE
CPUC HAS TAKEN TO STAND UP THE
FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT GRANT
PROGRAM. BUT I DID WANT TO
ADDRESS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF
THE PROGRAM, AND THAT'S THE
ELEMENT THAT YOU MENTIONED
PREVIOUSLY MADAM CHAIR. I WANT
TO RECOGNIZE THAT CPUC HAS
RECENTLY RELEASED A MAP SHOWING
WHAT IS KNOWN AS PRIORITY AREAS.
AND I'D LIKE TO START BY
CLARIFYING A FEW POINTS THAT I
BELIEVE HAVE CAUSED RECENT
CONFUSION. FIRST THE MAP THAT
IDENTIFIES PRIORITY AREAS IS A
DRAFT THAT IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER
CHANGES, WHICH I WILL ADDRESS
SOME MORE DETAIL IN A MOMENT,
BUT IT'S ALSO RECOGNIZE
IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE UPFRONT
THAT THIS IS NOT A FINAL MAP.
SECOND THE AREAS MARKED ON THE
MAP ARE NOT THE ONLY AREAS
ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING IN THE C P.
U. C S PROGRAM. ON THIS POINT, I
RECOGNIZE THAT THE TERM PRIORITY
AREAS MAYBE A BIT OF A MISNOMER
, AND THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY
AREAS THAT WILL BE FUNDED AND
THEY'RE NOT EVEN THE AREAS THAT
WILL BE NECESSARILY FUNDED
FIRST. INSTEAD WHAT PRIORITY
AREAS MEANS IS THAT ONCE THE
PROCESS TO IDENTIFY THESE AREAS
AS COMPLETE, THEY WILL DETERMINE
WHETHER AN APPLICANT RECEIVES
POINTS IN ONE OF THE 10 SCORING
CATEGORIES IN THE GRANT
APPLICATION. PROCESS.
SPECIFICALLY THEY WILL BE
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE 10 20
ADDITIONAL POINTS. AND THIRD.
THIS ITERATION OF THE MAP DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE SECOND ELEMENT
OF THIS FUNDING CATEGORY UNDER
THE CPCS PROGRAM RULES, WHICH IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. THE SECOND
ELEMENT IS THAT PRODUCTS
PROJECTS PROPOSING TO SERVE
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ARE
ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR THE POINTS IN
THIS CATEGORY, AND I WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT THE CURRENT VERSION
OF THE PRIORITY AREAS THE
ELIGIBILITY FOR THIS 20 POINTS
OUT OF 130 NEEDS WORK. AND WE
WELCOME INPUT TO INFORM OUR
FURTHER PROGRESS PROCESS. EACH
PRIORITY AREA WAS DESIGNED TO
MODEL A REASONABLY ENGINEERED
BROADBAND NETWORK. UM AND IT
ALSO ESTIMATED WAS DIET DESIGNED
TO ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
AND ENSURE SUSTAINABLE REVENUE
AND OPERATING COSTS FOR A
STANDALONE PROJECT. AS YOU WILL
HEAR FROM DIRECTOR OSBORNE WERE
WE DEVELOPED AND RELEASED AN
INITIAL DRAFT OF THE MAP AND ARE
SOLICITING PUBLIC FEEDBACK,
RECOGNIZING THAT THE MAP IS FAR
TOO FAR FROM COMPLETE IN THE
INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY, WE
THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST TO
INVITE PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON AN
INITIAL ITERATION WITH INITIAL
DATA. SO FAR, WE HAVE RECEIVED
HELPFUL FEEDBACK FROM YOUR
CONSTITUENTS IN MANY STAKEHOLDER
GROUPS THAT HAVE IDENTIFIED DATA
DISCREPANCIES, AND WE RECOGNIZE
THAT THE ROLLOUT OF THE MAP
AMIDST FULL INCORPORATION AND
CLEARING CORPORATION OF THE
CRITICAL COMPONENT I MEAN,
MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THE ELEMENT
IN OUR OWN GUIDELINES THAT
INCORPORATES DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES INTO PRIORITY. THE
PRIORITY AREAS APPLICATION
SCORING CATEGORY. WITH RESPECT
TO ACCURATE ACCURACY OF UNSERVED
LOCATIONS. WHILE THE PRIORITY
AREAS MAP WAS DEVELOPED, WITH
THE BEST AVAILABLE DATA AT THE
TIME OF ITS INITIAL DEVELOPMENT
, WE EXPECT THAT MANY OF THE
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED, UH, WHEN
, WITH UPDATED DATA, UM WILL BE
RESOLVED WHEN WE ADD DATA
COLLECTED IN LATE 2022 PURSUANT
TO A CPC DATA REQUEST. ASSEMBLY
BILL 27 52. AND ULTIMATELY, CPCS
ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBPOENAS TO INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS. CPSC STAFF ARE
CURRENTLY WORKING TO PROCESS AND
VALIDATE THE DATA RECEIVED AND
IT WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE NEXT
VERSION OF THE PRIORITY AREA
MAP. MOVING FORWARD. THE CPUC
WILL CORRECT THE ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TODAY WILL
INTEGRATE THE BROADBAND DATA
RECEIVED IN THE LATE 20 TO 22
DATA REQUESTS AND WILL INTEGRATE
BROADBAND EQUITY INFORMATION
INTO THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR
THE PRIORITY AREAS SCORING
CATEGORY. FINALLY I WOULD LIKE
TO CLARIFY THE SCOPE OF THE
FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT THE
GRANT FUND. THIS GRANT FUND WAS
CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO
FUND INFRASTRUCTURE IN AREAS
WHERE SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE
CURRENTLY DOES NOT EXIST. IT WAS
INTENTIONALLY PAIRED WITH
FUNDING FOR A STATE OWNED MIDDLE
MILE NETWORK IMPLEMENTED BY THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY. TOGETHER THESE
PROGRAMS GIVE CALIFORNIA THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE OF TOMORROW TO
SERVE COMMUNITIES THAT CURRENTLY
HAVE NO ABILITY TO ACCESS
INTERNET SERVICES AT SPEEDS OF
25 3 OR ABOVE THIS PARTICULAR
FUND DOES NOT. WHAT THIS
PARTICULAR FRIEND DOES NOT DO IS
ASSIST WITH COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
STRUGGLING WITH LOW ADOPTION
RATES. WHERE INFRASTRUCTURE
EXISTS, BUT INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
ABLE TO ACCESS SERVICES
PRIMARILY DUE TO COST BARRIERS.
PEOPLE IN THOSE AREAS ARE ALSO
DISCONNECTED AND ADDRESSING THIS
. THAT PROBLEM IS A CRITICAL
COMPONENT OF THE STATE'S
BROADBAND. FOR ALL EFFORTS.
THERE'S A SUITE OF STATE AND
FEDERAL PROGRAMS OAN AIMED AT
THOSE AREAS. THESE BROADBAND
AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS INCLUDE
THE FEDERAL AFFORDABILITY CAN
AFFORDABLE CONNECTIVITY PROGRAM
, THE CALIFORNIA LIFELINE
PROGRAM AND VARIOUS GRANT
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE
BROADBAND ADOPTION ACCOUNT.
BROADBAND PUBLIC HOUSING ACCOUNT
, THE BROADBAND LOAN LOSS
RESERVE FUND. UM AND IMPORTANTLY
, WE ALSO EXPECT THE DEPARTMENT
OF TECHNOLOGIES MIDDLE MILE
PROJECT WILL BE TRANSFORMATIONAL
IN REDUCING THE COST OF SERVICE
IN MANY AREAS OF THE STATE. IN
CLOSING. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
YOU. CHAIR BOERNER HORVATH FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TODAY
AND I WILL NOW TURN TO
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION DIRECTOR
ROBERT OSBORNE TO PROVIDE MORE
DETAIL ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE C P. U. C S FEDERAL FUNDING
ACCOUNT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR PATERSON AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ROBERT
OSBORNE. I'M DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION AT THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE
ON THE VARIOUS LAST MILE
BROADBAND PROGRAMS THAT WERE
ENACTED WITH SENATE BILL 1 56.
YOU HAVE WITH YOU? I BELIEVE
SOME SLIDES, SO I'M GOING TO GO
TO SLIDE TO WHICH SAYS LAST MILE
BROADBAND INITIATIVE AT THE TOP.
HMM THE CPC HAS ACTIVELY
IMPLEMENTING SEVERAL NEW
BROADBAND FUNDING GRANT FUNDING
PROGRAMS AS WELL AS UPDATING
EXISTING PROGRAMS PURSUANT TO
SENATE BILL ONE. SB 1, 56
ASSEMBLY BILL 14 AND SENATE BILL
FOR THIS INCLUDES LOCAL AGENCY
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
PROGRAM. THIS PROGRAM IS JUST
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES TO
PREPARE FOR BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT. SINCE
OPENING APPLICATIONS LAST AUGUST
. THE CPC HAS RECEIVED 116
APPLICATIONS WORTH OVER $52
MILLION AND APPROVED 82
APPLICATIONS WORTH OVER $36
MILLION. THE FUND HAS $50
MILLION ALLOCATED TO IT. AND DUE
TO ITS IMMENSE POPULARITY. WE'RE
WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
TO SEE HOW TO AUGMENT THAT
ALLOCATION TO SUPPORT ALL
COUNTIES TO DATE, 43 COUNTIES
HAVE APPLIED FOR GRANTS. THE
FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT, WHICH
FUNDS LAST MILE INFRASTRUCTURE
BROADBAND PROJECTS. THE CPC
ISSUED A DECISION ON PROGRAM
RULES IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR AND
HAS BEEN DEVELOPED DEVELOPING
PROGRAM MATERIALS AND SYSTEMS TO
SUPPORT OPENING UP APPLICATIONS
IN JUNE. THE LOAN LOSS RESERVE
PROGRAM, WHICH ENABLES LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND NONPROFITS TO
SECURE FINANCING FOR BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE. THE CPUC IS
TARGETING A PROPOSED DECISION IN
THE FIRST HALF OF 2023. RECENT
ACTIONS ON THE LOMAS RESERVE
PROGRAM INCLUDE COMMENTS AND
REPLIES ON THE LOAN LAST RESERVE
PROPOSAL IN OCTOBER OF LAST
YEAR. UM CPC AND THE CALIFORNIA
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT BANK SIGNED AN
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT IN
NOVEMBER LAST YEAR TO WORK
TOGETHER TO DEVELOP THE LOAN
LOSS RESERVE FUND. THE CPC HELD
THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WORKSHOP IN NOVEMBER TO PROVIDE
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE
FEEDBACK ON THE STAFF PROPOSAL.
FINALLY THE CALIFORNIA EVENTS
SERVICES FUND, WHICH INCLUDES
BROADBAND PUBLIC HOUSING ACCOUNT
, BROADBAND ADOPTION ACCOUNT
RURAL AND URBAN REGIONAL
BROADBAND CONSORTIUM ACCOUNT.
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE, GRANT
ACCOUNT LINE EXTENSION PROGRAM
AND TRIBAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
IN 2022, THE CPC ISSUED TO CSF
DECISIONS. ONE EXPANDS THE
ELIGIBILITY AS REQUIRED UNDER
SENATE BILL 1 56 FOR BROADBAND
PUBLIC HOUSING ACCOUNT GRANT AND
MODIFIES THE BROADBAND ADOPTION
ACCOUNT AND BROADBAND, URBAN AND
RURAL CONSORTIUM ACCOUNT GRANTS
PROGRAM. IT ALSO ADOPTED THE CSF
PROGRAM BUDGET AND SUB ACCOUNT
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 22 23.
THE SECOND DECISION MODIFIES THE
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT
ACCOUNT PROGRAM RULES TO
IMPLEMENT THE RECENT LEGISLATION
, WHICH SENATE BILL FOUR AND
ASSEMBLY BILL 41. WHICH CHANGED
THE PROJECT ELIGIBILITY AND
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. FINALLY IN
JULY. 22 22 THE CPC OPEN GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR THE BROADBAND
PUBLIC HOUSING ACCOUNT AND
RECEIVED 19 APPLICATIONS FOR A
TOTAL OF 1.4 MILLION. BROADBAND
ADOPTION ACCOUNT. WE RECEIVED 99
APPLICATIONS REQUESTING A TOTAL
OF 28.5 MILLION. BROADBAND URBAN
AND RURAL AND CONSORTIUM ACCOUNT
. WE RECEIVED 15 APPLICATIONS
AND HAVE MADE AWARDS. THE CPC IS
ALSO SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY WITH
THE MIDDLE MILD BROADBAND
INITIATIVE AND PROVIDING
PUBLICLY VETTED AND
COMPREHENSIVE DATA ANALYSIS AND
MAPS TO ASSIST WITH THE MIDDLE
MILE DEPLOYMENT. THESE EFFORTS
HELP GUIDE THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE
STATE OWNED OPEN ACCESS MIDDLE
MILE NETWORK THAT WILL SERVE AS
THE BACKBONE FOR THE STATEWIDE
INFRASTRUCTURE TO ENABLE LAST
MILE BROADBAND CONNECTIONS. IN
ADDITION, THE CPC WAS AWARDED
4.9 MILLION IN FEDERAL FUNDING
FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT OF 2021
THROUGH THE NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION,
BROADBAND EQUITY ACCESS AND
DEPLOYMENT OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
BEAD PROGRAM. TO DO PLANNING
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE BEAD
LAST MILE SUB GRANT T PROGRAM,
WHICH WILL BE ADMINISTERED BY
THE CPUC. THE CPC IS
COORDINATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF TECHNOLOGY AND PLANNING
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES IN ALIGNING
DIGITAL EQUITY PLANNING WITH THE
BEAD AS THE DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY RECEIVED THE DIGITAL
EQUITY PLANNING GRANT FROM THE
TO AND AS THE DESIGNATED STATE
ENTITY FOR DIGITAL EQUITY. I'LL
SPEAK MORE ABOUT THIS LATER IN
MY PRESENTATION. SOME MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS SLIDE
SHOWS THE IMPLEMENTATION
TIMELINE FOR THE FEDERAL FUNDING
ACCOUNT PROGRAM. THE AREA ON THE
LEFT, SUMMARIZES SOME OF THE
WORK THAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE
FIRST LOCAL AGENCY TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GRANTS MADE IN
OCTOBER, AND THIS INCLUDES, AS I
MENTIONED EARLIER, ADOPTING THE
FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT RULES IN
APRIL. UM HIRING 25 STAFF. 20
DEVELOPING THE GRANT MANAGEMENT
PLATFORM. UM DOING THE PROVIDER
BROADBAND PROVIDER DATA REQUEST
, OPENING THE FIRST LATTER GRANT
LOCAL AGENCY TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GRANT WINDOW, WHICH
IS ON A ROLLING BASIS WHERE
ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS EVERY
MONTH. SYDNEY THE BROADBAND IN A
SUBPOENA AND RECEIVING THE DATA
IN DECEMBER AND THEN CONTINUED
COORDINATION WITH THE MODEL
MODEL MODEL BROADBAND INITIATIVE
. SO TO GET INTO THE TIMELINE
WORKING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT IN
OCTOBER, WE MADE THE FIRST LOCAL
AGENCY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
AWARDS. IN NOVEMBER. WE BEGAN
BRIEFINGS ON THE PRIORITY AREAS
, AND IN DECEMBER WE DID A SOFT
LAUNCH TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE
MAJOR TECHNICAL BUGS SUCH AS
LAYER DISPLAY DATA LABELING AND
WEB HOSTING. WE'VE BEGUN
INTERNAL TRAINING ON OUR
CASEWORKER STAFF, AND IN MAY WE
PLAN TO LAUNCH THE GRANTS
MANAGEMENT PLATFORM AND IN JUNE
BEGIN ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR
THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO SLIDE FOUR. SO
THIS SLIDE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF
WHERE WE ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS OF THE TOOLS THAT WILL
MAKE UP THE SUPPORT STRUCTURE
FOR THE FF TO FEDERAL FUNDING
ACCOUNT APPLICANTS. MAP
DEVELOPMENT ON THE LEFT PRODUCED
VERSION ONE OF THE PARTY MAPS,
WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE
TODAY. WE'VE PUBLISHED THAT MAP
, AND NOW WE'RE IN THE FEEDBACK
STAGE, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN
THE SQUARE. WE'LL BE
INCORPORATING THE FEEDBACK AND
UPDATING THE UNDERLYING DATA AND
THE PRIORITY AREA MODEL TO
RELEASE VERSION TWO, WHICH WILL
THEN BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR
THE APPLICATIONS. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. SLIDE FIVE. SO THIS IS
AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE PRIORITY
AREAS APPEAR ON THE CURRENT MAP
TODAY AND WHERE WE FIND CLUSTERS
OF UNSERVED LOCATIONS THAT ARE
NOT INCLUDED IN PRIORITY AREAS.
THESE ARE AREAS OF GREAT NEED,
AS EVIDENCED BY INCORPORATING
METRICS FOR DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES SUCH AS THOSE IN THE
CPUC S ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL
JUSTICE ACTION PLAN AND IN THE
SOCIOECONOMIC VULNERABILITY
INDEX, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE C.
V. THE DATA SETS USED TO MODEL
THE PARTY AREAS WHERE WHAT WE
HAD THE BEST GRANULAR DATA AT
THE TIME. THE CPC WILL BE
UPDATING THE UNDERLYING DATA AND
THE MOST RECENT DATA COLLECTION
WE RECEIVED IN DECEMBER AND
UPDATING THE PRIORITY AREAS
BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE
RECEIVING RIGHT NOW. MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT SLIDE SLIDE SIX. SO
WITH REGARD TO, UM FUNDING
CONCERNS ABOUT THE FUNDING FOR
THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT.
THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PLAN
FOR APPLICATIONS, REVIEWING
APPLICATIONS AND AWARDING
APPLICATIONS. SO APPLICATION
AROUND ONE AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER, WE'RE PLANNING TO BEGIN
ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS IN JUNE
OF THIS YEAR. THAT REVIEW
PROCESS WILL GO THROUGH AUGUST.
WE PLAN TO MAKE THE FIRST ROUND
WON AWARDS IN JANUARY OF 2024
PROJECT. CONSTRUCTION WOULD THEN
GO FROM FEBRUARY 2024 UP THROUGH
DECEMBER. 2026. THE NEXT ROAD
DOWN IS APPLICATION AROUND TOO.
EXPECT TO HAVE THE WINDOW OPEN
FOR ROUND TWO IN JANUARY OF 2024
REVIEWING, UM, THOSE
APPLICATIONS BETWEEN MARCH AND
NOVEMBER AND THEN MAKING THE
SECOND ROUND AWARDS BY THE END
OF NOVEMBER OR SORRY, THE END OF
DECEMBER OF 2024 WITH PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION GOING FOR ABOUT 24
MONTHS. THIRD IF NECESSARY, WE
CAN OPEN A THIRD APPLICATION
WINDOW, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT WILL STILL NEED TO LOOK AT.
BASED ON HOW MANY APPLICATIONS
WE'VE RECEIVED TO DATE. LET'S
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE LAST
SLIDE. SO THIS IS REGARDING THE
BROADBAND EQUITY ACCESS AND
DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE BEAD. THIS IS A
FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAM THAT AIMS
TO GET ALL AMERICANS ONLINE BY
FUNDING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN
STATES OR TERRITORIES,
COMMUNITIES AND STAKEHOLDERS TO
BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE WHERE NO
INTERNET ACCESS, UM EXISTS AT 25
3 AND UNDERSERVED LOCATIONS HAVE
ACCESS THAT'S BELOW 200 MEGABITS
PER SECOND DOWN IN 20 MEGABITS
PER SECOND UP. THE INITIAL
PLANNING FUNDS LETTER OF INTENT
. WE SUBMITTED THAT TO THE NTH
OF JULY 1ST AND THAT DESIGNATED
THE CPC AS THE ADMINISTERING
ENTITY. UM THE INITIAL PLANNING
FUNDS APPLICATION WE SUBMITTED
ON AUGUST 12TH. WE DID OUR FIRST
KICK OFF MEETING IN COOPERATION
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY IN OCTOBER OF LAST
YEAR. UM AND THEN THE FCC OPENED
ITS FIRST CHALLENGE AROUND FOR
THE FABRIC. SO THERE'S TWO PARTS
OF THE FCC MAP. THERE'S
SOMETHING CALLED THE FABRIC,
WHICH IS A LIST OF ALL THE
LOCATIONS ACROSS THE STATE. AND
THEN THERE'S THE AVAILABILITY
CHALLENGE, WHICH IS THE PRESENCE
OF BROADBAND. SO THE CPC WENT
THROUGH THE FABRIC THAT THE FCC
HAS AS THE BASIS FOR THEIR MAP
AND WE SUBMITTED A FABRIC
CHALLENGE. WE BASICALLY
IDENTIFIED 42,000 LOCATIONS THAT
WERE NOT CORRECTLY LABELED IN
THE FCC'S FABRIC. OF THAT THE
FCC DETERMINED ABOUT 16,000 WERE
MISSING FROM THE CALIFORNIA MAP,
SO THOSE HAVE BEEN ADDED IN
VERSION TWO OF THE FCC'S MAP. SO
THAT'S THE THAT'S THE RESULT OF
THE FABRIC CHALLENGE. UM IN THE
END OF NOVEMBER, WE HAD PLANNED
TO GET THE INITIAL PLANNING
FUNDS. IN FACT, WE GOT THE AWARD
NOTIFICATION FOR INITIAL
PLANNING FUNDS AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER 4.9 MILLION IN DECEMBER
ON DECEMBER 7TH FOLLOWING THAT
THE FCC PUBLISHED THEIR SECOND
VERSION OF THE FABRIC, WHICH I
MENTIONED EARLIER, WITH THE
BROADBAND DATA ADDED TO IT SO
THAT BROADBAND DATA WAS THE
BASIS FOR THE AVAILABILITY
CHALLENGE. THIS IS THE SECOND
CHALLENGE THAT THE FCC OPENED
UP. THE AVAILABILITY CHALLENGE
PERIOD WAS FROM NOVEMBER 18TH
THROUGH JANUARY 13TH OF THIS
YEAR. SO THE FCC, UM
AVAILABILITY DATA. WE FOUND SOME
MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THAT, AND SO
WE'VE GONE THROUGH AS MUCH AS WE
COULD IN THE TIME GIVEN. KEEP IN
MIND. IT WAS FROM NOVEMBER 18TH
ALL THE WAY THROUGH JANUARY.
13TH THERE'S OVER 10 MILLION
LOCATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. THERE'S
160 PROVIDERS THAT WE COLLECT
DATA FOR SO WE REALLY HAD TO DO
TRIAGE TO TRY AND DO THE BEST WE
COULD, WITH THE TIME GIVEN TO
CHALLENGE THE DATA. WE'RE IN THE
PROCESS OF TALKING WITH THE FCC
NNT. WE DID FILE A AVAILABILITY
CHALLENGE AND WE'RE WORKING WITH
THEM TO TRY AND IMPROVE THE MAPS
THAT WE HAVE THE LARGEST AMOUNT
OF BEAT ALLOCATION POSSIBLE FOR
CALIFORNIA. UM FOLLOWING ON THE
TIMELINE, ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT
ARE COMING UP, SO WE HAVE A BEAD
RULEMAKING THAT WE'RE AIMING FOR
THE END OF FEBRUARY VOTING
MEETING SO THAT WILL GO INTO
CREATING THE PROGRAM RULES FOR
THE BEAD PROGRAM FOR THE SUB
GRANTEE PROGRAM. UM, THE FCC
WILL BE PUBLISHING THEIR FINAL
VERSION OF THE MAP AND MID MAY
OF THIS YEAR AND THAT WOULD BE
THE BASIS FOR THE NT'S
ALLOCATION, WHICH WE'RE
EXPECTING BEFORE THE END OF JUNE
. THE FIVE YEAR ACTION PLAN IS
SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE
FUNDING THROUGH THE INITIAL
PLANNING FUNDS THAT I MENTIONED
EARLIER AND THAT'S DUE BY THE
END OF BEFORE THE END OF AUGUST.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT TO YOU
TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
REMARKS. PRESIDENT REYNOLDS. I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOU OPENING UP
THIS FIRST PART OF THE OVERSIGHT
HEARING WITH SAYING HOW THE
FEEDBACK LOOP WILL HAPPEN,
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE IS
MISSING INFORMATION
ACKNOWLEDGING HOW WE'RE GOING TO
GO FORWARD. I WANT TO ALSO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S POPPIN BONTA
AND HOOVER, WHO HAVE JOINED US
TODAY. UM BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP
TO OTHER MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS,
UM I HAVE A FEW REMARKS AND
QUESTIONS. UM I'M VERY
CONCERNED. IF WE GO BACK ONE
SLIDE. I THINK IT'S SLIDE. SIX
SIDE SIX. UH UM. I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT THE TIMELINES AND THE
SPENDING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THE MONEY HAS TO BE SPENT
BY THE END OF 2026 FOR THE TWO
BILLION FF A FUNDING IS THAT
CORRECT? I THINK OH, I THINK THE
FEDERAL RULES SAY LIQUIDATE BY
THE END OF 2026, WHICH IS
ESSENTIALLY SPENT YES. SO WHEN I
LOOK AT WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR PLAN
ROUND ONE AWARDS. YOU'RE LOOKING
AT ONE BILLION IN ROUND 11
BILLION AROUND TO YOUR GIVING.
BASICALLY A YEAR AND A HALF
MAXIMUM A YEAR FOR THE ROUND TO
FUNDING TO BE SPENT. THAT'S NOT
TO BE ALLOCATED. THAT'S TO BE
SPENT. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY AND
A LOT OF TIME AND A LOT OF
PERMITTING THAT STILL NEEDS TO
GO ON TO BE SPENT, AND THERE'S A
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. I THINK
YOU KNOW, MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES
WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S VERY
CONCERNING THAT BECAUSE WE'RE
SPENDING ALL THIS TIME ON THE
FRONT END. THAT THAT MONEY IS
NOT GETTING OUT. THERE'S A REAL
RISK HERE THAT $1 BILLION WILL
NOT BE SPENT AND HAVE TO BE
RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. AND I THINK WE NEED
TO ALL BE VERY COGNIZANT OF
EVERY SINGLE MOMENT GOING
FORWARD OF EVERY SINGLE STEP
THAT IS NOT NECESSARY IS A STEP
THAT COULD BE RETURNING BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF INVESTING
IN THE PEOPLE AND FAMILIES OF
CALIFORNIA. AND I THINK THAT IS
A VERY I MEAN, I WAS CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT BEFORE THIS HEARING,
AND I SEE THIS TIMELINE AND WE
WILL, UM, PROVIDE A LINK TO THIS
ON OUR COMMITTEE WEBSITE FOR
THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING US ON TV
. UM BUT THERE'S A HUGE CONCERN
THAT I HAVE AROUND THAT. UM AND
WHEN I LOOK AT THAT AND WE'RE
I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES WILL HAVE
QUESTIONS AROUND THE MAPPING
PROCESS. UM BUT WHEN I EVERY
TIME WE HAVE AND SPEND FIXING
MISTAKES, IT'S TIME THAT WE'RE
NOT GOING TO BE BUILDING
INFRASTRUCTURE. THESE DOLLARS
ARE INFRASTRUCTURE DOLLARS. AND
SO WE'RE GONNA NEED TO FIGURE
OUT AND IF YOU KNOW YOU YOU SAID
YOU'RE OPEN FOR FEEDBACK. THAT
WOULD BE MY KEY FEEDBACK AREAS
IS PLEASE STOP DOING THINGS THAT
WE DON'T NEED TO DO. BECAUSE I'M
NOT GOING TO HAVE. I WOULD BE
VERY DISAPPOINTED IF WE SPENT
OUR WE SEND BACK A BILLION
DOLLARS TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. AND YOUR RISK IS
VERY HIGH RIGHT NOW. FOR THAT.
UM AND I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT
THE PRIORITY MAP AREAS MOVING
FORWARD WITH ANY CHANGES TO THE
MAP AND THE METRICS RISK FURTHER
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF FLAWED
METRICS. AND WE'VE SEEN THIS
TIME AND TIME AGAIN. MY
COLLEAGUE, THREE OF US HAS BEEN
TRYING TO FIX CALVERA SCREEN
SENSE. I THINK SHE GOT IN IN THE
LEGISLATURE. ONCE WE
INSTITUTIONALIZED, FLAWED
METRICS, THEY'RE NEARLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THAT YOU SHOWED US
THE FEEDBACK LOOP THAT YOU WANT
TO DO THIS. HOWEVER. MY DAD USED
TO HAVE THIS. UM HE WAS A
BEHAVIORAL PSYCHOLOGIST AND I
USED TO HAVE THIS TEST, HE SAID.
IT'S THE INNER OCULAR TRAUMA
TEST. IF IT HITS YOU SMACK
BETWEEN THE EYES, YOU KNOW HE'S
GOT IT. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
PRIORITY MAP AREAS THERE'S
NOTHING AROUND EQUITY IN THEM.
AND. YOU USE THE INTERNET OCULAR
EYE TRAUMA TEST, AND THAT'S WHAT
I THINK HAS CAUSED SO MUCH
CONCERN IS BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT
IT AND THEY'RE CLEARLY NOT
AREAS. WHERE WE HAVE UNDERSERVED
POPULATIONS ARE DISADVANTAGED
PEOPLE. LIKE I LOOK AT THE MAP
THAT I WAS PROVIDED FOR MY
DISTRICT. THERE THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY NOT THE PLACES WHERE
WE NEED HAPPY HELPING PEOPLE.
AND SO I THINK YOU HAVE, UH,
SOME. I HAVE SOME HUGE CONCERNS
AROUND THOSE TWO THINGS, AND THE
PROBLEM IS THE MAPPING PROCESS
THAT YOU HAVE INSTITUTED IS
DELAYING THE FUNDING GETTING OUT
AND YOU KNOW, AND IT'S FLAWED.
AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU
HAVE A FEEDBACK MECHANISM TO TRY
TO FIX IT. BUT EVERY SINGLE DAY
YOU SPEND FIXING IT. AND
DELAYING A DATE BY WHICH THAT
FUNDING GETS OUT IS A RISK TO
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA. AND I
DON'T THINK THAT'S YOUR GOAL,
AND THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT MY
GOAL. UM AND LASTLY, I CONTINUE
TO BE DISAPPOINTED THAT THE CPC
WILL NOT BE A MR MINISTERING THE
F F A ON A TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL
BASIS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT PER
DOLLAR FUNDING FOR DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGIES. THERE ARE PLACES
WHERE IF WE WERE MORE TECHNOLOGY
NEUTRAL, WE BE DEPLOYING FASTER
AND GETTING MORE ACCESS TO
CALIFORNIANS. UM AND I HAVE TO
SAY, I THINK WHEN WE HAD OUR
CONVERSATION, PRESIDENT REYNOLDS
ON FRIDAY I WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT
THAT THERE THAT THERE IS MORE
TECHNOLOGY OUT THERE THAT WE'RE
CONSIDERING IN THE F F A UM
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES ARE THE
QUICKEST TO DEPLOY, UM, AND TO
THE EXTENT THAT SOME CAN MEET
THE PERFORMANCE METRICS USUALLY
SHOULD BE CATEGORICALLY ALLOWED.
SO WITH THAT, UM, I DO HAVE A
QUESTION PRESIDENT REYNOLDS. YOU
DID SAY IN YOUR COMMENTS, AND I
WANT TO SEE IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT
CORRECTLY. YOU SAID THAT YOUR AD
EQUITY IN THE PRIORITY AREAS
GOING FOR THE FORWARD IN THE
NEXT ITERATION OF THE MAP.
SHOULD YOU CONTINUE TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THESE MAPS? IS THAT
CORRECT? DID I UNDERSTAND THAT
CORRECTLY? UM YES, YOU DID. WE
HAVE THE SOCIOECONOMIC
VULNERABILITY INDEX ON THE MAPS,
BUT IT'S A SEPARATE LAYER. AND
SO WHAT WILL BE WORKING ON IS
THAT TIE BETWEEN THE PRIORITY
AREAS THAT ARE MARKED AND THE
SOCIO ECONOMIC DATA SO THAT THE
IDENTITY OF DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES TO INCORPORATE THOSE
TWO THINGS. AND IF THEY DON'T
OVERLAP BECAUSE THEY MY
DISTRICT, THEY DON'T OVERLAP. WE
WILL ALSO, UM, ADDING IN THE
OTHER LAYER, WHICH IS THE
UNSERVED AREAS, AND YOU MAY HAVE
NOTICED THEY'RE SMALLER DOTS ON
THE MAP WITH UNSERVED AREAS, SO
THOSE WILL ALSO BE BROUGHT IN.
EVERYTHING WILL BE BROUGHT IN
TOGETHER AND I, YOU KNOW, I
CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW STAFF WILL
ACTUALLY MAKE THIS HAPPEN WITH
THE FINAL PRODUCT. BUT THE
CONCEPT IS THAT WILL BE ABLE TO
LOOK AT THE UNSERVED AREAS,
VULNERABILITY INDEX AND PRIORITY
AREAS AS ALL FITTING IN THAT IN
THAT 20 POINT CATEGORY, SO THAT
WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS MORE
OF THOSE UNSERVED AREAS THAT
AREN'T MARKED IN PRIORITY AREAS.
YOU'RE CORRECT, AND YOUR
DISTRICT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF
WHERE IT DOESN'T COME TOGETHER
TO MATCH IN THE PRIORITY AREAS.
CAN I ASK HOW YOU DEFINE EQUITY
? AND HOW ARE YOU INTEND?
ALRIGHT. YOU DESCRIBE HOW YOU
INTEND TO THAT. HOW DO YOU
DEFINE EQUITY? CAN YOU JUST
DEFINE EQUITY FIRST? BECAUSE I
THINK WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
TALKING ABOUT WHAT EQUITY MEANS,
AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION FOR NOT ONLY OUR
STAKEHOLDERS, BUT FOR MEMBERS
HERE, SO IT MAYBE I'LL TURN TO
DIRECTOR OSBORNE TO TALK ABOUT
WHAT GOES INTO THE SOCIOECONOMIC
INDEX. UM WE DO IF YOU NOTICE
THE UNSERVED AREAS, I THINK YOU
KNOW, IN DISTINCTION FROM THE
PRIORITY AREAS. IF YOU LOOK AT
ALL OF THE UNSERVED AREAS THAT
BETTER CAPTURES SOME OF OUR LOW
INCOME COMMUNITIES, COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE RANKED HIGH ON THE
CALENDAR VIRUS SCREEN TOOL. UM
BUT LET ME TURN TO DIRECTOR
OSBORNE TO TALK ABOUT THE
SOCIOECONOMIC INDEX. YES. SO
WE'RE LOOKING AT DEMOGRAPHIC
DATA THAT IS LOOKING AT INCOMES
LOOKING AT DISPARITIES AND
GETTING BACK TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL JUSTICE
ACTION PLAN. ARE ALSO LOOKING AT
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY
POLLUTION. UM SO AND THAT'S
SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN IN
DISCUSSION WITH SOME OF THE
STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS WE'VE
GOTTEN FEEDBACK FROM IS LOOKING
AT THE MOST IMPACTED COMMUNITIES
IN CALIFORNIA AND HOW TO GET
BROADBAND TO THEM. OKAY THANK
YOU. AND YEAH, I'LL TURN OVER TO
MY VICE CHAIR AND THEN MR RIVAS
OR ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SERVICEMEN
AS THE MEMBER BOTHER. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. APPRECIATE IT. I
WANT TO ALIGN MY QUESTIONS AND
REMARKS WITH THE CHAIR. I
APPRECIATE DID YOU READ MY
NOTES? SO I'M JUST GOING TO GET
DIRECTLY INTO THREE AREAS. THE
PROGRAM CURRENTLY HAS A
REQUIREMENT TO DIVIDE FUNDING
EQUALLY BETWEEN PROJECTS AND
URBAN AND RURAL COUNTIES. BUT IT
DOES NOT APPLY IF THAT MONEY IS
NOT ALLOCATED BY JUNE 30TH 2023
. MY CONCERN IS THAT MONEY NOT
ALLOCATED BY JUNE, 30 2023 IS NO
LONGER BOUND BY THE URBAN RURAL
SPLIT AND CAN BE SPENT. ANYWHERE
IN THE STATE. SO QUESTION NUMBER
ONE. DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE MONEY
WILL BE ALLOCATED BY JUNE 30
2023. UM NO, BUT WE DO INTEND TO
CARRY FORWARD THAT REQUIREMENT
OF THE URBAN RURAL SPLIT
QUESTION. WILL YOU COMMIT ON THE
RECORD TO MAINTAIN THE 50 50
SPLIT BETWEEN URBAN AND RURAL
COUNTIES? EVEN AFTER THE JUNE 30
DEADLINE. I BELIEVE THAT'S
ALREADY BEEN DONE IN OUR PROGRAM
RULES. TOUCHING ON THE CHAIRS
CONCERNED ABOUT TECHNOLOGY.
NEUTRAL. UH, OBVIOUSLY, THE
PROGRAM EXCLUDES APPLICATIONS
FROM WIRELESS BROADBAND
PROVIDERS, EVEN IF THEY CAN MEET
THE REQUIRED SPEEDS. UM. IT
LOOKS LIKE THE BUCS ANALYSIS FOR
THIS PROGRAM ESTIMATE WOULD BE
8.5 BILLION TO REACH ALL OF THE
PRIORITY AREAS WITH A WIRED
CONNECTION. BUT THAT'S DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY $2
BILLION IN THE PROGRAM. DOESN'T
IT MAKE SENSE TO AT LEAST
CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FROM
WIRELESS PROVIDERS TO SERVE
THESE HOUSEHOLDS IF MORE
HOUSEHOLDS COULD BE SERVED AT
LOWER COST? UM SO THIS IS A
QUESTION THAT WE HAVE THOUGHT
ABOUT A LOT AND TALK TO
PROVIDERS AND STAKEHOLDERS. IT'S
A VERY GOOD QUESTION, AND WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT WE DO HAVE IN THE
WAY THAT, UM, THAT OUR DECISION
CAME DOWN ON THIS QUESTION IS
THAT WE HAVE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT
ARE AVAILABLE FOR FIXED WIRELESS
PROVIDERS. YOU'RE RIGHT. THOSE
PROJECTS CAN GENERALLY BE
IMPLEMENTED MORE QUICKLY, AND WE
ARE GETTING MONEY OUT. WE HAVE
OPEN APPLICATION, UM, PROCESSES
ON AN ONGOING BASIS THAT THOSE
PROJECTS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR,
UM SO I AGREE IN CERTAIN AREAS
THAT THE PICS WIRELESS IS A GOOD
SOLUTION, AND WE DO HAVE MONEY
AVAILABLE FOR THOSE PROJECTS,
AND WE WANT TO MOVE ON THOSE
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL
FUNDING ACCOUNT, UM, WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL
GUIDELINES, WHICH EMPHASIZE THE
PLACES WHERE WIRE LINE
CONNECTION, UM IS CAN BE BUILT
AND IS A IS A GOOD SOLUTION, SO
IT'S KIND OF A MIX OF BOTH, FOR
INSTANCE, WE HAVE A PUBLIC
HOUSING ACCOUNT WHERE FIXED
WIRELESS CAN BE A GOOD SOLUTION
. WE HAVE OTHER AREAS WHERE
FIXED WIRELESS PROJECTS CAN BE
SUPPORTED AND FUNDED, INCLUDING
THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THOSE
FIXED WIRELESS PROJECTS. UM. GO
AHEAD. I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP.
JUST, UH. REAPPORTIONMENT. UH,
PLACED ME IN AN ASSEMBLY
DISTRICT EIGHT IF YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT THAT DISTRICT IT IS
HUGE. GOES ACROSS THE SAN
JOAQUIN RIVER DEREK COUNTY, ALL
THE WAY UP TO SONORA GOES ACROSS
THIS YEAR, NEVADA'S TO THE
EASTERN SIDE DOWN TO 3. 95
QUARTER TAKES IN PRESIDENT
COUNTY, BUT, UH. THE FACT OF THE
MATTER REMAINS THAT IF WE'RE
GOING TO ACTUALIZE THIS, YOU'RE
GONNA HAVE TO USE THIS WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY. YOU DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH MONEY TO DO IT HARDWIRED
THAT'S PLAIN AND SIMPLE. BUT I
THINK YOU MAY HEAR FROM OTHERS
HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCESS
TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID, ARE THESE
OTHER FUNDS? MAY HAVE SOME
COMMENT ABOUT HOW REALISTIC THAT
THAT MIGHT BE SO I JUST WANT TO
ECHO. UM IF THE. WE CAN REACH
THOSE SPEEDS AND WE CAN DO IT AT
COST. WELL BELOW. THAT WILL
PROVIDE, UH THE SERVICE. BUT IF
YOU HAVE LIMITED MONEY, AND YOU
CAN DO THE SAME KIND OF THING
WHETHER OTHER TECHNOLOGY YOU CAN
ACTUALLY COVER MORE PEOPLE.
ISN'T THAT THE GOAL AND TO
EXERCISE OUT OF THIS PLAN? THAT
THAT TECHNOLOGY I THINK IS A
MISTAKE. AND, UM, I JOINED THE
CHAIR AND SAYING, PLEASE
RECONSIDER THAT. BECAUSE THERE
ARE LOTS OF PROVIDERS THAT ARE
READY TO GO TO WORK ON THIS AND
AGAIN, I FOCUS ON LARGE
DISTRICTS LIKE MINE. THAT HAVE,
UH, MOUNTAIN FOLKS THAT DON'T
HAVE CONNECTION THAT HAVE VALLEY
FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE CONNECTION
SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT DON'T THAT
AGRICULTURE. AGRICULTURE IS
USING TECHNOLOGY LIKE YOU
WOULDN'T BELIEVE. WELL, IT'S NOT
IT'S NOT COST EFFECTIVE. UH, OUT
IN WEST BRESNAN Ó. TO RUN. THAT
THE WITHOUT THE. CHOICE OF BEING
ABLE TO DO THESE WIRELESS.
CONNECTIONS THEY CAN MEET THE
SPEEDS AND THEY CAN DO IT.
AFFORDABLY AND THEY SHOULD BE A
PART OF THE OVERALL MIX,
PARTICULARLY IF IT PRESSES
FORWARD. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF
GETTING MORE PEOPLE. AT LESS
COST. FINAL YEAH, I'LL BE
LISTEN, I'M DONE THEN. DO YOU
THINK THAT YOU CAN MEET THE
DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31 2026 TO
SPEND THE $1 BILLION IN FEDERAL
MONEY, AND THIS IS IN KEEPING
WITH SOME OF THE OTHER. COMMENTS
HOW CAN WE RELY ON THE CLARITY
OF THE PUC PRIORITY AREA MAPS
REGARDING UNSERVED AREAS WILL BE
SERVED WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW
ULTIMATELY WHERE THE MIDDLE MILE
WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. CAN YOU
MEET THIS DECEMBER? 31 26
DEADLINE AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THE
DELAY IN MAKING THESE DECISIONS
RESULTS IN THE MONEY HAVING BEEN
ALLOCATED NOT FULLY SPENT? THE
QUESTION IS, IF THAT TAKES
PLACE. IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEEK AN
EXTENSION OR NOT? SO DID
STARTING WITH THE FIRST PART
THAT WE DO BELIEVE THAT WE WILL
MEET THE DEADLINES. WE HAVE THE
SCHEDULE TO MEET THE DEADLINES.
PART OF THE REASON WE'RE DOING
THE WORK UP FRONT IS TO HELP
WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
WE'VE ISSUED PLANNING GRANTS IN
ALL OF THE COUNTIES OF THE
STATE. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF
WORK GIVING UNDERTAKEN TO GET
APPLICATIONS IN ORDER TO PROCESS
AND BE ABLE TO, UH UM,
EFFECTIVELY BUILD PROJECTS WITH
THE FUNDING WITH RESPECT TO THE
EXTENSION DIRECTOR OSBORNE DO
YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE? YES
SO, UM, THE FUNDING IS NOT 100%
FEDERAL FUNDING. AT THIS POINT,
THERE'S ABOUT 540 MILLION THAT'S
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND THE REST
GENERAL FUNDS, SO I THINK WITH
REGARD TO THE ABILITY TO EXTEND
THE DEADLINE, SOME OF THAT IS
UNDER OUR CONTROL WITHIN THE
STATE. AGAIN. I CONCERNS HERE
WITH RESPECT TO THE MAP. WE
CAN'T RELAX. I MEAN, YOU GOT THE
MAP STICKS IN THE WAY OF GETTING
OUT AND GETTING INTO THE FIELD
AND GETTING CONSTRUCTED. RIGHT
SO YOU'VE GOT A MAP PROBLEM? YOU
GOT SOME FUNDING ISSUES, AND
YOU'VE GOT SOME REAL SUSPICION
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN
ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING
US. YOU CAN DO. SO PLEASE
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A
CERTAIN DEGREE OF SKEPTICISM
HERE. THAT WE'RE LOADING UP, AS
THE CHAIR SAID ON THE FRONT END
TO DO STUFF. THAT IS HOLDING UP.
MAKING THE TIMELINE WORK,
GETTING OUT INTO THE FIELD AND
UTILIZING TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN,
IN FACT, HELP US LIKE LIKE THE
WIRELESS. SO AGAIN. I'M I'M I'M
FINISHED. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO
ME BECAUSE OF THE DISTRICT AND
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA. I HAVE A LOT
OF GEOGRAPHY WITH LIMITED
POPULATION. BUT THEN I GOT A BIG
CITY LIKE FRESNO. SO YOU GOTTA
YOU GOTTA GET THE MAP STRAIGHT
AND GET THE MONEY OUT. ALRIGHT
OR YOU'RE GONNA BE BACK IN FRONT
OF US, AND WE'RE GONNA BE
TALKING ABOUT THIS AGAIN. PURE
AND SIMPLE. I JUST WANT TO POINT
OUT THE FUNDING AMOUNT
DISCREPANCIES FOR FIXED WIRELESS
YES, THERE'S AMOUNTS AVAILABLE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S 150 MILLION, OF
WHICH ONLY 2 25 MILLION HAS BEEN
ALLOCATED FOR FIXED WIRELESS
VERSUS TWO BILLION IT'S A LOT OF
ZEROS DIFFERENCE. I DON'T THINK
WHEN WE LOOK AT RURAL PROVISION
OF BROADBAND IF THEY MEET THE
SPEED REQUIREMENT. IT'S AN
ARTIFICIAL BARRIER. TO
EFFECTIVELY USING FUNDS AND
EFFECTIVELY IMPROVING THE LIVES
OF PEOPLE. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO
RECONSIDER THAT BECAUSE YOU
CAN'T SAY 150 MILLION IS SOMEHOW
EQUIVALENT TO TWO BILLION.
WITHOUT I GOTTA ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
RIVAS. UM, THANK YOU. CHAIR. UM
I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND
THE VICE CHAIR FOR ALREADY, UM,
YOU KNOW, ASKING OR BRINGING UP
THEIR CONCERNS, WHICH I SHARE
AND ALSO ALIGNED WITH YOUR
CONCERNS. UH LAST WEEK, I SENT
YOU A LETTER. I'M THE CHAIR OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DELEGATION, WHICH IS A GROUP OF
39 MEMBERS THAT REPRESENT LOS
ANGELES COUNTY HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERN THAT PRIOR
YOU KNOW OUR COMMUNITIES IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY. UM WE'RE NOT UM
, ON THAT MAP ON, YOU KNOW, ON
YOUR PRIORITY MAP, RIGHT? MOST
DISADVANTAGED AND HIGHEST NEED
ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THIS
FUNDING. UM, AND SO I JUST WANT
TO YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, JUST
SHARE OUR CONCERNS. UM, FOR OUR
COUNTY. UM AND HOW WILL THIS
PROCESS CHANGE TO INCLUDE OUR
HIGHEST NEED COMMUNITIES OF LOS
ANGELES. YEAH I AM. THANK YOU
FOR THAT. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LETTER, AND WE WILL BE PROVIDING
A RESPONSE. UM THE BUT LET ME
JUST ALSO STATE THAT, UM, THE
PRIORITY AREAS, WHICH ARE THOSE
LARGER AREAS MARKED ON THE MAP.
UM ARE ONE PART OF THE MAP AND
THE OTHER PART IS THE ANSWER
SERVED AREAS AND, UM, SO I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT ALSO
THE UNSERVED AREAS. THOSE ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING IN THIS
PROGRAM, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT
PART OF THE PRIORITY MARIEL AREA
LAYER OF THE MAP. UM SO THOSE
UNSERVED AREAS I BELIEVE SHOW
THEN THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE THERE
IS NO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT SERVES AVAILABLE TO SERVE
AT 25 3 SPEEDS. UM AND THOSE
AREAS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS
FUNDING. OKAY BUT THE MAP WILL
BE UPDATED, AND WHEN WILL WE
HAVE THE NEXT DRAFT? I MEAN, I
KNOW IT'S IN YOUR TIMELINE, BUT
I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHEN YOU
THINK WE'LL HAVE THE NEXT DRAFT
. THAT'S GREAT. LET ME TURN TO
DIRECTOR OSBORNE FOR AN
ESTIMATE. YES SO WE WILL BE
UPDATING THE MAP BASED ON
FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND
YOU KNOW, WITH OUR JUNE
APPLICATION WINDOW WILL BE
HAVING THE MAP PRIOR TO THAT. I
CAN'T SAY IF IT'S EXACTLY A
MONTH BEFORE, BUT WE'D LIKE TO
HAVE IT WELL BEFORE THE PEOPLE
HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT
IT AND UNDERSTAND AND THEN BE
ABLE TO USE THAT AS A BASIS FOR
APPLYING OKAY. I LOOK FORWARD TO
YOUR RESPONSE. UM, YOU KNOW, TO
OUR DELEGATION. UM AND WE'LL
JUST BE KEEPING AN EYE ON OF THE
AREAS THAT LOT FOR LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. I
WANT TO APPRECIATE CHAIR
BOERNER HORVATH FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD AT THIS CRITICAL
TIME, AND I VERY MUCH ALIGNED
WITH VICE CHAIR PATTERSON'S
COMMENTS AS WELL AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. RIVAS IS AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR VERY DELICATE
AND, UH UM. IN MY ESTIMATION,
KIND ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION
WHEN YOU USE WORDS LIKE SERIOUS
SKEPTICISM OR SERIOUS CONCERN I
COME FROM. I REPRESENT OAKLAND,
ALAMEDA AND EMERYVILLE. THE
URBAN CORE BEING OAKLAND. AND MY
WORDS DON'T JUST LAND ON SERIOUS
CONCERN. IT'S MORE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABSOLUTE
OUTRAGE. FOR OUR COMMUNITY. UH
IN EAST OAKLAND AND IN THESE
AREAS THAT ARE NOT COVERED IN
THE URBAN CORE COMPONENT AROUND
AND SERVED. WE HAVE 75% OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNCONNECTED
LIVING IN THOSE AREAS IN THAT
URBAN CORE. AND BECAUSE OF THE
WAY THAT THESE MAPS HAVE BEEN
DRAWN, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, UH,
THESE AREAS WILL RECEIVE 20 WILL
RECEIVE 20 ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR
BEING ABLE TO BE QUALIFIED IN
THERE AS PRIORITY AREAS THAT IS
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN FOR PEOPLE
IN OAKLAND FOR COMMUNITIES IN
OAKLAND, WHERE 12% OF OUR
CHILDREN DID NOT HAVE
CONNECTIVITY. AND WE HAD TO WORK
TO HAVE 97% OF THEM DO THAT. AND
WE DID THAT ON OUR OWN WITHOUT
STATE INTERVENTION AND WITHOUT
SUPPORT, AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE
THE WAY AND SO I'M SERIOUSLY
CONCERNED. SKEPTICAL OUTRAGED
AND REALLY QUESTIONING WHETHER
THESE MAPS ARE THE MAPS THAT WE
SHOULD ACTUALLY BE USING.
BECAUSE THIS IS ANTITHETICAL TO
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE,
AND ACTUALLY IN GRAINS INTO OUR
STATEWIDE FUNDING ALLOCATION.
THE HISTORIC RACISM AND
SYSTEMIC, UH ESSENTIALLY KIND OF
. IGNORING OF THE DEMOGRAPHICS
WITHIN OUR URBAN CORE
COMMUNITIES. AND SO WHILE I
APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE AN
INTENTION TO REDRAW THE MAPS
WITH ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER
INFORMATION. COME SECOND ROUND
OF FUNDING. I'M VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT BEING ABLE TO REACH THE
TIMELINE THAT HAS BEEN AFFORDED
TO US WITH THESE FEDERAL DOLLARS
IN A WAY THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF
THE COMMUNITIES THAT NEED THAT
THAT THIS FUNDING IS SUPPOSED TO
BE FOUR AND I AGREE WITH MR
PATTERSON. THAT WE NEED TO
CONSIDER. OBVIOUSLY THE 50 50
SPLIT MOVING FORWARD SO THAT OUR
RURAL COMMUNITIES AND OUR URBAN
CORE COMMUNITIES ARE CONTINUED
TO BE CONSIDERED. BUT I HAVE A
PROBLEM WHEN EAST OAKLAND IS NOT
CONSIDERED IN THAT AREA, BUT
PLACES LIKE PIEDMONT. IN MY
DISTRICT ARE AND THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT
WAS THE METRICS THAT WERE USED
THE OVERLAY THAT WAS NOT
APPLIED. UH, WHERE WE JUST HAVE
. A COMPLETE FAILURE TO ACTUALLY
BE ABLE TO CAPTURE THE NEED AND
I AM SERIOUSLY JUST FROM A SET
OF OVERSIGHT. IT WOULD BE FOR
ME. $2 BILLION SPENT. SO I WOULD
LOVE TO BE ABLE TO HEAR HOW IN
THIS POINT IN TIME, CPUC INTENDS
TO ADDRESS THE ILLS THAT WE
WOULD ESSENTIALLY PERPETUATE.
SHOULD WE BE MOVING FORWARD IN
THE WAY THAT WE ARE? UM THANK
YOU FOR THAT QUESTION. AND YOUR
COMMENTS A ABSOLUTELY AGREE. AND
HERE YOU AND UNDERSTAND THE
CONCERN. I THINK PART OF WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING REFLECTS AND ALSO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. PATTERSON'S
COMMENTS REFLECTS THE DIVERSITY
OF THE STATE AND THE DIVERSITY
OF THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEMS
THAT WE'RE FACING IN ADDRESSING
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE, AND WE DON'T
HAVE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL
SOLUTION, AND I THINK WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED MANY,
MANY TOOLS TO COME AT THIS
PROBLEM. I, UM I APOLOGIZE FOR
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE BIGGER
AREAS ON OUR MAP, WHICH
REPRESENTS STANDALONE NETWORK
AREAS BEING TERMED PRIORITY. I
THINK THAT'S CAUSED. UM, IT WAS
NOT WHAT WE INTENDED TO SAY THAT
THOSE MAPS WOULD BE OUR PRIORITY
AND FUNDING. IT WAS MEANT TO BE
A TOOL FOR THOSE AREAS WHERE THE
APPLICANT NEEDS ASSISTANCE IN
DEVELOPING AND GETTING THE
INFORMATION AND ON HOW TO DESIGN
A STANDALONE NETWORK. THERE ARE
OTHER THE OTHER LAYER IN OUR MAP
IS THE UNSERVED AREAS. AND I
THINK FOR THE URBAN CORE AND THE
PROBLEMS IN URBAN AREAS, THE
UNSERVED AREAS IS THE PLACE TO
GO TO LOOK FOR THE AREAS WHERE
WE WOULD BE FOCUSING THE
FUNDING. AND SO THOSE ARE THE
SMALLER INDICATIONS ON OUR MAP.
THAT SHOW UM ACCORDING TO THE
DATA THAT WE HAVE EVERY, UM,
PLACE IN CALIFORNIA, WHERE THERE
IS NOT INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO
THOSE AREAS INCLUDE A LOT OF
PLACES IN OAKLAND IN LOS ANGELES
IN THE URBAN AREAS IN THOSE
AREAS, IT'S USUALLY A SMALLER
THESE ARE THE URBAN DONUT HOLES
THAT WE TALK ABOUT, SO THEY'RE
USUALLY INFRASTRUCTURE
SURROUNDING PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN
OVERLOOKED FROM FROM DEPLOYMENT
OF INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO WE DO
INTEND TO, UM DEPLOY FUNDING
INTO THOSE AREAS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS
COMPLETED IN THE URBAN AREAS.
UNLIKE RURAL AREAS, WHERE
THERE'S JUST NO INFRASTRUCTURE
AT ALL, AND WE WOULD BE LOOKING
AT A SOLUTION THERE, THAT'S A
STANDALONE, SUSTAINABLE NETWORK
, SO IT'S KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT
PROBLEMS THAT WE DIDN'T DEPICT
DEPICT WELL IN OUR ROLLOUT, BUT
WE DO INTEND TO ADDRESS BOTH.
WITH THIS FUNDING, AND, IN FACT
PRIORITIZE THOSE MOST
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND
THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN
OVERLOOKED FOR SO LONG. IN
ADDITION, UM I RECOGNIZE THAT A
LOT OF THE PROBLEMS HERE ARE NOT
JUST LIMITED TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
IN SOME PLACES. THERE IS
INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE, BUT
IT'S NOT ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS
, AND THAT'S WHERE WE DEPLOY
DIFFERENT TOOLS. AND WE DO HAVE
FUNDING FOR SUBSIDIES FOR
ADOPTION, AS WELL AS DIGITAL
LITERACY AND LOTS OF OTHER
THINGS THAT WE ALSO NEED TO WORK
ON AT THE SAME TIME, SO THAT WE
ADDRESS ALL OF THE NEEDS OF
COMMUNITY MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY
THOSE DISADVANTAGED AREAS IN OUR
URBAN COMMUNITIES. I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
APPLYING A LEVEL OF GRANULARITY
THAT I DON'T THINK IS BEEN
DEMONSTRATED IN THE MAPS WITH
CLARITY, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR
PRIORITY AREAS OF EAST BERKELEY
HAYWARD PLEASANT IN LIVERMORE,
NEWARK. HAVE ALL BEEN IDENTIFIED
AS THESE PRIORITY AREAS, AND
THAT MIGHT BE THE LEVEL OF
GRANULARITY THAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT. IN ALAMEDA COUNTY. IT
EXCLUDES. THE FLATLANDS OF
OAKLAND. WHERE THERE IS THERE
ARE CONNECTIVITY ISSUES. I KNOW
THAT BECAUSE I SAT ON A
COMMITTEE WHERE WE HAD AN
INDIVIDUAL RUNNING AROUND, UH,
WHILE WE WERE WITH OAKLAND
UNDIVIDED GOING TO DIFFERENT
PARTS OF OUR CITY. THE ENTIRETY
OF OAKLAND'S HOLDING UP THEIR
PHONES TO SEE IF THEY WOULD
WORK, SEEING IF THERE WERE
ACTUALLY CONSISTENT WIRELESS
CONNECTIONS, SEEING IF THERE
WERE CONSISTENT BROADBAND
CONNECTIONS, AND THEY WERE NOT
CONSISTENT SO. WHILE I
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MIGHT BE
KIND OF LIKE A GROSS, UM
INDEPENDENT GROSS MURDER, MOTOR
FUNCTION KIND OF APPLICATION AT
THE LEVEL OF GRANULARITY THAT
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT LOOKING
AT, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU BASED ON
THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE
PROVIDED SO FAR. THAT THE MOST
UNSERVED AND UNDERSERVED PARTS
OF THE URBAN CORE HAVE BEEN LEFT
OUT. AND WE'RE WE'LL BE HAPPY TO
FOLLOW UP WITH YOU ABOUT
SPECIFIC AREAS, BUT I ALSO
ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE
UNSERVED LAYER OF THE MAP, NOT
THE PRIORITY AREAS MAP BUT THE
UNSERVED AND THAT'S WHERE WE
REALLY NEED TO DIG IN. TO MAKE
SURE INFORMATION IS ACCURATE
ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THOSE UNSERVED
AREAS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANKS THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. I
WOULD CONCUR. I HAVE SOME
QUESTIONS. UM AS WE FOLLOW UP
WITH THESE DEFINITIONS, SO
YOU'RE MARRIED TO UNSERVED AND
YOU CAN'T BE A PRIORITY UNLESS
YOU'RE IN AN UNSERVED AREA.
RIGHT SO THE STATUS BECAUSE OF
WHAT I READ ON YOUR REPORT, IT
SAYS THE PRIORITY AREAS ARE A
SUBSET. OF ALL OF THE UNSERVED
AREAS. I GOT THAT RIGHT? THAT'S
RIGHT. YOU GOT TO BE UNSERVED
BEFORE YOU CAN BE A PRIORITY
ACCORDING TO SP 1 56, OKAY,
THAT'S FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
FUNDING. OKAY SO THAT'S WHERE
THE DISCONNECT I THINK
DISCONNECT IS IN THE LABELING OF
PRIORITY AREAS, WHICH WERE MEANT
TO BE A TOOL FOR CERTAIN AREAS
THAT NEEDED A STANDALONE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFORMATION
FOR THAT. WASN'T MEANT TO DEFINE
WHERE WE'RE NECESSARILY GOING TO
GIVE THE FUNDING. IT'S A SUBSET
AS YOU SAID, THAT'S VERY
ACCURATE PRIORITY. YOU'RE
REFERRING TO INFRASTRUCTURE AND
A LOT OF FOLKS HERE THINK
PRIORITY MEANS THOSE THAT ARE
UNDERSERVED AND THOSE WERE
EQUITY NEEDS TO OVERLAY. AND SO
IT GETS VERY CONFUSING. AND
BECAUSE YOU I LISTENED WHEN YOU
TALKED TO BEGIN WITH, I KEEP
LISTENING. KEEP GOING BACK AND
FORTH AND YOU KEEP ENERGY
CHANGING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THESE
FOLKS KEEP TALKING ABOUT EQUITY.
AND SO I GUESS I JUST DON'T KNOW
IF THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE
UNSERVED ALREADY HAVE SOME
INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE THAT YOU
CAN CONNECT TO OR YOU CAN
ENHANCE TO MAKE IT WORK. THEN
WHERE DOES THE EQUITY COME IN?
IF YOU WHEN DO YOU ROLL THAT
PART INTO THE EQUATION? UM
THAT'S REALLY WELL PUT. I THINK
YOU'RE POINTING TO AN IMPORTANT
DISTINCTION HERE THAT THE
UNSERVED AREAS ARE THE AREAS
THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING
UNDER SB 1 56. WE HAVE THOSE
MARKED ON THE MAP. BUT IF YOU
DON'T, UH, IF YOU DON'T ACTIVATE
THAT PART OF THE MAP IF YOU ONLY
LOOK AT THE PRIORITY AREAS THE
UNSERVED AREAS WON'T SHOW UP.
AND SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE
MAP OF JUST PRIORITY AREAS,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY IT'S NOT
NECESSARILY PRIORITY AREAS. IT'S
THOSE AREAS WHERE THERE'S NO
INFRASTRUCTURE TO HOOK UP TO. AS
YOU SAID, WHERE YOU REALLY NEED
A STANDALONE NETWORK AND LOCALS
ARE WORKING ON THESE LOOK, LOOK
, I'LL LOTS OF ENTITIES WHO ARE
DESIGNING NETWORKS TO BE READY
TO APPLY FOR THOSE LARGER AREAS
WHERE YOU NEED TO DECIDE. DESIGN
A NETWORK WE'VE PROVIDED HELP
WITH. FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR
THEM SO THEY CAN COME IN WITH A
STANDALONE APPLICATION. THAT'S
DIFFERENT THAN THE ANSWERED IT,
SO THAT'S ONE TYPE OF
APPLICATION WE EXPECT TO GET. WE
ALSO HOPE TO GET APPLICATIONS TO
SERVE THE UNSERVED AREAS THAT
ARE MARKED ON THE DIFFERENT
LAYER OF THE MAP, INCLUDING THE
AREAS IN THE URBAN CORE THAT ARE
UNSERVED. BUT THERE'S I
UNDERSTAND IT. I ANYTHING THAT'S
IN THE PRIORITY ISN'T AN
UNSERVED AREA BECAUSE IT'S A
SUBSET OF UNSERVED. CORRECT
PRIORITY AREAS ALL SERVE
UNDERSERVED AREAS. THAT'S RIGHT
, CLICK ON AND I'LL SEE A
PRIORITY. IT'S GOT TO BE IN ONE
OF YOUR UNSERVED AREAS, SO THAT
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION THAT THE
UNSERVED AREAS ARE SMALLER.
THEY'RE THEY'RE SMALLER. UM,
IT'S A PATCHWORK THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. THE PRIORITY AREAS ARE
LARGER, AND IT'S A IT'S GUIDANCE
FOR AN APPLICANT WHO COULD SAY
YOU CAN SERVE THESE UNSERVED
AREAS BY COMING FOR WORD WITH A
PROPOSAL. TO BUILD A NETWORK IN
A BROADER AREA AND I BELIEVE
THAT WE WOULDN'T PROVIDE FUNDING
FOR THE WHOLE. PROJECT THAT YOU
WANT TO SPEAK TO. YOU WOULD ONLY
FUND THE ANSWER PARTS, BUT A NEW
ENTRANT COULD COME IN AND SAY I
HAVE THIS PROJECT. I'M GOING TO
SERVE IT. I'M GOING TO SERVE
THIS WHOLE AREA. UM RURAL AREAS
ARE BETTER EXAMPLE WHERE THERE'S
NO INFRASTRUCTURE HERE. WE WANT
TO SERVE EVERYONE. UM THERE ARE
THESE UNSERVED CUSTOMERS THAT WE
NEED TO GET TO. BUT THIS IS A
VIABLE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD
INTO THE FUTURE THAT CAN BE
SUSTAINABLY FUNDED. THROUGH THE
CUSTOMER BASE TO MISS BARKER'S
POINT. SHE'S GOT PEOPLE THAT ARE
SERVED, BUT IT'S JUST NOT GOOD
SERVICE. HOW DOES SHE GET TO BE
A PRIORITY THEN? BECAUSE SHE
DOESN'T FALL YOU'VE GOT UNSERVED
, RIGHT? AND THEN YOU TELL ME
THE PRIORITIES A SUBSET WITHIN
ANSWER. SHE'S GOT PEOPLE THAT
SERVED, BUT THEY'RE NOT GETTING
GOOD SERVICE. THAT'S RIGHT. AND
SO THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVE ABOVE 25
3 OR ABOVE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE
FOR THE FUNDING IN THIS PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE AND JUST
INTERJECT A LITTLE BIT THAT
THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM, SO
THERE ARE PLACES IN WEST OAKLAND
AND EAST OAKLAND. THAT ARE
UNSERVED. GRID BY GRID WHO WOULD
NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING
RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE OF THE WAY
THAT THESE MAPS HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT JOHN THE THIS THE
REQUIREMENT ON SERVED VERSUS
UNSERVED IS A STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT. THEY ARE UNSERVED.
OKAY THEY DON'T IF THEY DON'T
HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE AT THAT
CRASS SPEED THAN THEY WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING IN THE
PROGRAM. THEY ARE ELIGIBLE. AND
IF SOMEONE COULD COME FORWARD
WITH A PROVIDER COULD COME
FORWARD WITH AN APPLICATION TO
FOR FUNDING UNDER THE PROGRAM
BECAUSE THEY HAVE SERVICE, BUT
THEY DON'T HAVE GOOD SERVICE
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE
INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE RIGHT AT
THE SPEED THEY'VE BEEN LEFT OUT
OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE HAS NOT BEEN
BUILT IN THOSE AREAS, EVEN IF
THERE'S INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND IF
THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS IN IN
THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DISTRICT
THAT I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE
INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THEY'VE
BEEN LEFT OUT THOSE WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING. SO I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY FOR ALL ALL
THOSE WATCHING. IT'S THE RED
DOTS THAT ARE THE UNSERVED. AND
WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST. IS, UM.
WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS PART OF
THE PROBLEM THAT I THINK HAS
BEEN CREATED BY THE MAP. I THINK
YOU SHOULD THROW OUT THE MAPS.
AND GET THE FUNDING OUT THE
DOOR. THAT'S WHAT I THINK YOU
SHOULD DO, BECAUSE I THINK IF
YOU CONTINUE DOWN THIS PATH,
YOUR FEEDBACK LOOP WILL BE
ANOTHER FEEDBACK GROUP AND
THEY'LL BE DISTRUST IN THE
PROCESS. IT WILL DELAY IT
FURTHER. SO IF I WERE THE CPUC
WHICH I'M NOT I'M A LEGISLATOR.
UH UM, I WOULD THROUGHOUT THE
MAPS. GET THE MONEY OUT THE
DOOR. YOU KNOW WHAT'S UNSERVED?
GIVE THE MONEY TO THE LIKE, JUST
LET PEOPLE GO BUILD IT. THAT'S
WHAT I WOULD DO. IF YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO DO THAT, BUT I WOULD
SAY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM YOU
HAVE YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL
TIMES AND I THINK I'VE
UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY. WHERE
YOU'VE SAID WE CREATED THE
PRIORITY MAPS BECAUSE WE SAID,
IF YOU DO THIS, IT'S PROFITABLE
AND YOU'RE GONNA SERVE THE
UNSERVED. IF YOUR GOAL WAS JUST
TO GIVE PEOPLE A GOOD ROAD MAP,
WHICH I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU
MEANT BY PRIORITY AREA. YOU'RE
LIKE, OH, THIS IS AN AREA THEY
THAT MIGHT WORK AND SERVE THE
UNSERVED. THEN DON'T GIVE THEM
20 EXTRA POINTS IF YOUR POINT IS
JUST TO GIVE SOME MUNICIPALITY
ROADMAP. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE
THEM EXTRA POINTS. GIVE 40
POINTS TO DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. AND DON'T GIVE
THESE PRIORITY AREAS WHICH YOU
LOOK IN THE URBAN AREAS WHERE
THE PRIORITY AREAS ARE. IT'S
RANCHO SANTA FE. IT'S PIEDMONT.
IT'S MALIBU. REMEMBER IF IT HITS
YOU RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES. I
MEAN, THAT'S CRAZY. YEAH ALSO
GOING BACK TO YOUR POINT OF THE
WIRELESS VERSUS THE WIRED AND
YOU WERE SPEAKING MADAM
PRESIDENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THERE'S INFRASTRUCTURE THERE IF
WE'RE NOT SO HUNG UP ON THE
WIRED VERSUS WHAT WHY ARE LESS
THAN WE SHOULDN'T CARE SO MUCH
ABOUT WHETHER THE INFRASTRUCTURE
IS THERE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE
RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU CAN DO A
WHOLE LOT MORE WITH THE WIRE
LESS RIGHT. AND SO I GUESS I
JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE
SO MARRIED TO THAT EITHER YOU
GOT MONEY ELSEWHERE FOR WIRELESS
LIKE I GET IT, AND YOU HAVE SOME
MONEY YOU WANT TO USE FOR WIRED,
BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE
AGNOSTIC AS IT RELATES TO THE
WIRE TO THE WIRELESS BECAUSE YOU
SAY SOME OF IT'S BASED ON
INFRASTRUCTURE. DO WE CARE AS
MUCH ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE IF
IT'S WIRELESS? THERE'S STILL
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED FOR
FIXED WIRELESS. THIS IS NOT
WIRELESS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT
YOUR YOU KNOW, A T AND T AND
VERIZON CELL PHONE. THIS IS NOT
CELLPHONE SERVICE THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS BROADBAND
TO THE HOME. AND SO THIS IS
HAVING THE ABILITY TO ACCESS THE
INTERNET FOR LEARNING FOR DOING
ZOOM MEETINGS FOR MEDICAL
APPOINTMENTS IN YOUR HOME. AND
SO THIS REALLY IS WE'RE TRYING
TO PROVIDE THE MONEY IS MEANT
ACCORDING TO THE STATUTORY
DIRECTION TO PROVIDE RELIABLE
SERVICE WELL INTO THE FUTURE,
AND WE'RE THE FEDERAL PORTION OF
THE MONEY IS CONSISTENT BEING
ALLOCATED CONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL GUIDELINES, UM, WHICH DO
EMPHASIZE WIRE LINE FOR THAT, UH
, SERVICE TO THE HOME TO
PROVIDE, UH UM, HIGH QUALITY
INTERNET SERVICE WELL INTO THE
FUTURE AGAIN. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE PROGRAMS FOR FIXED
WIRELESS, UM, SERVICE PROVIDERS
, AND THAT'S A GOOD FIT IN MANY
AREAS. IT REQUIRES LINE OF
SIGHT. NORMALLY IT'S YOU KNOW,
IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF
TECHNOLOGY. AND IT IS A GOOD FIT
AND WE HAVE MONEY THAT IS GOING
OUT AND THAT THOSE PROJECTS CAN
BE DESIGNED QUICKLY. THEY CAN BE
DEPLOYED QUICKLY. WE'RE GETTING
MONEY OUT THE DOOR TO FUND THOSE
PROJECTS NOW. THIS THIS THIS
WIRE LINE PROGRAM IS MEANT TO BE
A YOU KNOW, A THOUGHTFUL
APPROACH TO GIVE EVERY COMMUNITY
IN CALIFORNIA WHAT, UM MANY
COMMUNITIES CURRENTLY HAVE NOW,
WHICH IS A WIRE THAT IS ABLE TO
COME TO THEIR HOUSE AND PROVIDE
RELIABLE SERVICE INTO THE FUTURE
AT LOW COSTS AND HIGH SPEEDS.
AND SO IT'S THAT LOW COST HIGH
SPEED THAT YOU CAN GET WHEN YOU
HAVE, YOU KNOW, WILL HELP TO
PARE SOME OF THESE PROJECTS WITH
MIDDLE MILE WHEN YOU HAVE A WIRE
LINE TO THE HOME, AND IT LASTS
WELL INTO THE FUTURE. BUT I
ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT WE SHOULD
BE FUNDING SOME FIXED WIRELESS
PROJECTS. THEY CAN BE DONE
QUICKLY, AND WE ARE GETTING
MONEY OUT THE DOOR FOR THOSE AS
WELL. BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT
AGAIN. THE FUNDING DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN FIXED WIRELESS AND FIBER
TO THE HOME IS MASSIVELY
DIFFERENT, AND IF THEY'RE
GETTING AT THE END DAY ALL WE
CARE ABOUT IS THE SPEED AND
QUALITY OF THE NETWORK. WE
SHOULD BE TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL. IT
IS CHEAPER TO DO FIXED WIRELESS
AND MANY RURAL COMMUNITIES AND
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DOLLARS
THAT WILL BE LEFT OUT. WE'RE
DOING THIS WEIRD TRADE OFF.
THAT'S WHAT I JUST IT IS BOGGLES
MY MIND. AH, UM, THAT WERE
COMPLICATING SOMETHING. AND
WE'RE NOT IF WE IF WE DO
SOMETHING COMPLICATED, AND WE
ACTUALLY GET IT EQUITY, I'M
FINE. BUT WE'RE COMPLICATING
THIS AND WE'RE NOT GETTING AN
EQUITY. SO WE'RE NOT TECHNOLOGY
NEUTRAL. AND 25 MILLION VERSUS
TWO BILLION IS NOT SOMETHING YOU
CAN SAY WE'RE GETTING MONEY OUT
THE DOOR. NOW YOU'LL SEE YOU'RE
GETTING MONEY OUT THE DOOR.
THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.
IT'S JUST SO DESPERATE. THAT I
THINK THAT'S MISLEADING AND Tð.
I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT WITH
YOUR PRIORITY AREAS. WE HAVE A
LETTER FROM TURN AND I'M JUST
GOING TO READ IT BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT THING.
THE COST QUEST METHODOLOGY
CRAFTED PRIORITY MAP AREAS THAT
USES METHODS TO IDENTIFY WHERE
INTERNET PROVIDERS MAY FIND
PROFITABLE COMMUNITIES TO SERVE
INSTEAD OF IDENTIFYING UNSERVED
AREAS THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY
CONTRIBUTE TO MEETING THE
STATE'S BROADBAND OBJECTIVES.
THIS DEVIATION CAN BE SEEN AND
THE COST, QUIPPED COST QUEST MAP
RESULTS ONLY 25% OF THE COST
QUEST MAPS IDENTIFIED PRIORITY
AREAS ARE CURRENTLY UNSERVED. I
KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. YOU'RE
TRYING TO CREATE A BUSINESS CASE
FOR CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF
FIBER TO THE HOME. IT'S
EXPENSIVE. IT'S EXPENSIVE TO
BUILD. IT'S EXPENSIVE TO
MAINTAIN. I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I JUST
DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE GIVING
THEM 20 EXTRA POINTS IF IT'S
ALREADY PROFITABLE. HMM. CAN I
JUST ASK A QUESTION? SO UM I
THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS THE
NATURE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE
THAT WE HAVE. RIGHT NOW, IN
PARTS OF THE OF THE DEEP CORE
AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY AREAS
IN WEST ALAMEDA, EAST OAKLAND,
WEST OAKLAND THAT ARE RELYING ON
COPPER, WHITE 19 SEVENTIES
COPPER WIRING, SO I'M JUST GOING
TO ASK A QUESTION FOR CLARITY
SAKE. WHICH IS WILL THE UNSERVED
AREAS LIKE THE APARTMENT IN EAST
OAKLAND? THAT IS USING COPPER
DSL FROM THE 19 SEVENTIES. SO
THAT'S INFRASTRUCTURE, RIGHT? UM
OUT. THAT'S KIND OF OUTSIDE OF
THE PRIORITY AREAS, AS INDICATED
RIGHT NOW IN THE CURRENT MAP.
WILL THEY BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR
THIS? FUNDING WITHOUT THE 20
POINT DEFICIT. UM YES, THEY
WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY. UM THOSE
WOULD THEY BE ADDITIVE FOR THAT
FUNDING 20 POINT DEFICIT. 20
POINTS ALSO GIVES THAT CATEGORY
GIVES POINTS TO DISADVANTAGED
AREAS. AND SO WE NEED TO DO A
BETTER JOB AT CLARIFYING THAT,
BUT THE IDEA IS THAT AN
APPLICANT COULD COME IN TO SERVE
THAT AREA AND GET THOSE 20
POINTS, THE SAME AS THE PRIORITY
20 POINTS BY SHOWING THAT
THEY'RE IN A DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITY. SO, YES. AND WITH
RESPECT TO THE ELIGIBILITY, A
COPPER DSL WIRE LINE, I WOULD
ASSUME THAT WOULD NOT PROVIDE 25
3 UNDER THE FEDERAL GUY RULES
FOR THE FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL
PORTION OF THE FUNDING AND
UNSERVED AREA IS NOT SERVED WITH
A WIRE LINE AT 25. 3. IS THAT
RIGHT? AND SO THAT MEANS EVEN IF
WE HAD A FIXED WIRELESS PROJECT
IN THE AREA, IT WOULD STILL BE
CONSIDERED UNSERVED UNDER THE
FEDERAL RULES. THANK YOU. YEAH.
UP YEAH. WHAT WE CAN DO ONE LAST
QUESTION, AND THEN WE NEED TO
MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PANEL. UM.
WELL THEN I'LL JUST I'LL JUST
ECHO. THEN YOU KNOW MY
COLLEAGUES ON THE WIRELESS
ISSUE, I THINK, UH, I THINK WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S UH
PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE IN
CERTAIN PARTS OF THE STATE TO DO
A WIRED CONNECTION, AND I THINK
THE GOAL OBVIOUSLY I UNDERSTAND
THE RULES, BUT THE GOAL SHOULD
BE TO MAXIMIZE CONNECTION FOR
THE MOST AMOUNT OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS. NOT NOT SIMPLY TO.
YOU KNOW, THE GOAL ISN'T
NECESSARILY TO GET A WIRED
CONNECTION TO EVERYONE IS TO
MAXIMIZE HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE A
REAL CONNECTION. THAT IS
RELIABLE. THAT IS FAST AND SO
I'LL JUST ECHO AND JUST ASK A
DIFFERENT QUESTION THEN, BUT
THANK YOU TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR
THAT, UM, JUST TWO VERY BRIEF
QUESTIONS. THE CALIFORNIA
BROADBAND INVESTMENT MODEL TALKS
ABOUT UM, MENTIONS THE
CALIFORNIA THE CPUC CONTRACTOR
WITH COST QUEST. ASSOCIATES WAS
THERE. AN RFP ISSUED FOR THIS?
AND WHAT WERE THE PARAMETERS OF
THAT RFP? SO WE, UM THE PC HAD
CONTRACTED WITH COST QUEST.
PRIOR WITH THE INITIAL
CALIFORNIA BROADBAND COST MODEL
THAT WE USED IN 2020. SO UM, WE
AMENDED THAT CONTRACT TO MOVE ON
TO DO THE NEXT ROUND, WHICH IS
THE CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT MODEL.
OKAY? AND IN THE CREATION OF
THESE PRIORITY MAPS THAT HAVE
BEEN PRETTY THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED
RIGHT NOW, UM IN DETERMINATION
OF WHAT THE APPLICATION PROCESS
SHOULD LOOK LIKE. WHAT WERE
THERE ANY INDUSTRY PARTNERS
INCLUDED IN THAT PROCESS, WHERE
THERE ANY WORKSHOPS WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT? WHAT WAS KIND OF WERE
THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE INVITED
INTO THOSE DISCUSSIONS? YES
THROUGH THE RULEMAKING THAT
WHERE WE CREATED THE RULES FOR
THE PROGRAM, WHICH WERE
PUBLISHED IN APRIL, WE WENT
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS
DELIBERATIVE PROCESS THAT'S PART
OF THE PUC IS RULEMAKING.
INCLUDING INDUSTRY, INCLUDING
INDUSTRY. YES, WE RECEIVED
COMMENTS FROM INDUSTRY AS WELL
AS NON INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS. I
APPRECIATE THAT AGAIN. JUST WANT
TO. I KNOW WE'VE GOT TO MOVE ON.
I JUST WANT TO ECHO THE CHAIR'S
COMMENTS AS WELL ABOUT GETTING
THIS FUNDING OUT. IT'S REALLY
CRITICAL THAT WE DO THAT. THANK
YOU. COULD DO TO ADDRESS YOUR
FIRST COMMENT AS WELL. BROADBAND
IS AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE. WE NEED
TO PROVIDE BROADBAND TO EVERY
CALIFORNIAN. AND BUT WITH THAT,
AND THAT THAT IS AT SPEEDS OF 25
3 MINIMUM, THE PROJECTS THAT ARE
ELIGIBLE FOR THIS MONEY WOULD
COME FORWARD TO PROVIDE 100 UP
AND 100 DOWN. UM FOR THIS
PROGRAM, UM, THERE ARE OTHER. I
ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR COMMENT THAT
THAT A WIRE LINE MIGHT NOT MAKE
SENSE FOR EVERY STRUCTURE
HOUSEHOLD IN CALIFORNIA, BUT WE
DO NEED TO PROVIDE SERVICE FAR
INTO THE FUTURE FOR EVERY
CALIFORNIAN, AND THIS IS NOT ONE
SIZE FITS ALL. AS I SAID, THERE
ARE OTHER DIFFERENT TOOLS THAT
WE NEED TO USE. BUT WE NEED TO
FOCUS ON RELIABLE SERVICE. UH
COST EFFECTIVE FOR AFFORDABLE
SERVICE AND SERVICE THAT LESSON
TO THE FUTURE. SO THERE'S A LOT
TO UNPACK AND ALL OF THAT
THERE'S A LOT TO BALANCE AND ALL
OF OUR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. UM
BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT
WERE THAT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE, AND WE ALSO INTEND TO
FOCUS FUNDING ON OUR
DISADVANTAGED AND EQUITY
COMMUNITIES FIRST AND REALLY
PRIORITIZE THOSE WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT A WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY COULD
MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THOUGH?
I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM DO? YES.
THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. PRESIDENT REYNOLDS AND
DIRECTOR OSBORNE. I HOPE YOU
WILL REMAIN PRESENT FOR THE
SECOND PANEL AND THROUGH PUBLIC
COMMENT, UM, ANIMATED. I'LL GO
BACK TO YOUR SEATS IN THE
AUDIENCE, AND WE WERE GOING TO
MOVE TO OUR NEXT PANEL. THANK
YOU. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO PANEL
TO HEAR FROM TWO STAKEHOLDERS
WHOSE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN
CLOSELY INVOLVED AND
IMPLEMENTING THE F F A. THE FINE
WITNESS MAY WITNESSES MAY
APPROACH THE DIET SHANA, ENGLAND
DIRECTOR DIGITAL EQUITY
INITIATIVE AT THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION, AND WE
HAVE TRACY RYAN, SENIOR POLICY
ADVOCATE FOR RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
MEMBERS ASKED YOU AGAIN THAT
WILL HOLD OUR QUESTIONS TO THE
END OF THEIR PRESENTATION. AND
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU
TO BEGIN. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
YOUR INTEREST AND ATTENTION TO
THIS IMPORTANT AND HIGHLY
TECHNICAL ISSUE. UM I'M SHANNON
, ENGLAND AND DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
DIGITAL EQUITY INITIATIVE. IN
THAT ROLE I LEAD THE DIGITAL
EQUITY L. A COALITION, A
PARTNERSHIP OF MORE THAN 40
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
SERVING COMMUNITIES ACROSS L, A
COUNTY AND BEYOND. WE PARTNER
FREQUENTLY WITH OAKLAND AND
DIVIDED AND ARE DELIGHTED TO DO
SO. THE COALITION INCLUDES
ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TO PROVIDE
VITAL EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE,
HOUSING, IMMIGRATION, CIVIC
ENGAGEMENT, ARTS AND CLIMATE,
RESILIENCE, SERVICES AMONG MANY
OTHERS. AND THESE ORGANIZATIONS
HAVE COME TO DIGITAL EQUITY WORK
AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ENCOUNTERING
A CONSISTENT BARRIER TO THE
PROGRESS, EQUITY AND JUSTICE
THEY WORK TOWARDS. AND THAT'S
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE. SO I SPEAK
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE HUNDREDS
AND THOUSANDS OF UNSERVED
CALIFORNIANS AND THE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS MORE UNDERSERVED WHO
REMAINED STUCK ON THE WRONG SIDE
OF THE DIGITAL DIVIDE AND ARE
MARGINALIZED IN MYRIAD OTHER
WAYS. LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS,
IMMIGRANTS, PEOPLE OF COLOR
CALIFORNIANS WHO LIVE IN
COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
THAT HAVE SEEN DECADES OF
DISINVESTMENT AND UNDER
INVESTMENT. AND FOR MANY DATING
BACK TO THE REDLINING MAPS OF
THE 19 THIRTIES AND FORTIES THAT
DEPRIVED THEM OF CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS AND THEREBY ECONOMIC
, EDUCATIONAL AND CIVIC
OPPORTUNITIES. AND I WANT TO
PAUSE FOR A MOMENT TO NOTE THAT
SENATE BILL 1 56 WAS ACTUALLY
INTENDED. AND IT SAYS IN THE
STATUTE THAT THIS LAST MILE
MONEY IS INTENDED FOR BOTH
UNSERVED AND UNDERSERVED. I'LL
QUOTE FROM THE DECISION,
ACTUALLY, UH, YOU STATE OR
FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE MONIES
DEPOSITED INTO THE FEDERAL
FUNDING ACCOUNT TO IMPLEMENT
YOUR PROGRAM TO EXPEDITIOUSLY
EXPEDITIOUSLY. CONNECT UNSERVED
AND UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES BY
APPLICABLE FEDERAL DEADLINES. SO
WE AREN'T JUST TALKING ABOUT THE
UNSERVED. SO IN SHORT, I SPEAK
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE
AND COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE YET
AGAIN BEEN EXCLUDED AND DE
PRIORITIZED IN THE FEDERAL
FUNDING ACCOUNT, PRIORITY AREAS
MAP AND THIS SEVERELY
DISADVANTAGED IN THE UPCOMING
COMPETITION FOR BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN PUBLIC INVESTMENT.
I'M HERE TO RAISE THREE CRITICAL
AREAS OF CONCERN ABOUT THIS MAP
AND HOW IT WAS ABOUT HOW IT WAS
DEVELOPED AND HOW IT IS AT LEAST
IN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND
GUIDANCE GOING TO BE UTILIZED
AND TO SUGGEST A REMEDY. FIRST
THE PRIORITY AREAS. MAP IS
WEIGHTED OVERWHELMINGLY AS WE'VE
HEARD TOWARDS THE WEALTHIEST,
MOST ADVANTAGED BEST CONNECTED
COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE AND
LEAVES OUT THE MOST
DISADVANTAGED, LEAST CONNECTED
CALIFORNIANS. THIS IS CLEAR FROM
A 30,000 FT VANTAGE POINT YOU
JUST NEARLY NEED TO APPLY THE
EQUITY LAYER ON THE MAP, WHICH
COLOR CODES THE PRIORITY AREAS
ON THE BASIS OF THEIR SCORE ON
THE SOCIOECONOMIC VULNERABILITY
INDEX. GREEN IS LEAST VULNERABLE
, READ HIS MOST DISADVANTAGED
THE PRIORITY AREAS. MAP IS A SEA
OF GREEN. IT ALSO COMES INTO
SHARPER RELIEF WAS SPENDING MORE
TIME IN THE DETAILS OF THE MAP,
AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME
EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES OF WHAT THIS
LOOKS LIKE. THESE ARE BY NO
MEANS EXHAUSTIVE. A SPRAWLING
CPUC PRIORITY AREA INCLUDES
PEBBLE BEACH GOLF CLUBS, THE
INITIATION FEE FOR MEMBERSHIP.
THERE IS $47,500. THIS AREA
INCLUDES ALL THREE COURSES USED
FOR THE A T AND T PEBBLE BEACH
PRO AM TOURNAMENT, ACCORDING TO
THE MAP. THIS PRIORITY INCLUDES
VANISHINGLY FEW ON SERVED
LOCATIONS, BUT IT STILL NEEDS
$14.4 MILLION IN PUBLIC
SUBSIDIES TO COVER THEM.
MONTECITO COUNTRY CLUB, WHICH
COUNTS OPRAH WINFREY AS A MEMBER
AND NEIGHBOR. THAT'S FUN. UM AND
SURROUNDING HOMES IS INCLUDED IN
THE CPUC PRIORITY AREA, AND THE
MAP INDICATES IT NEEDS MORE THAN
A MILLION DOLLARS IN SUBSIDY.
AMONG THE COMMUNITIES, THOSE RED
DOTS AND WE WERE JUST HEARING
ABOUT THAT THE MAP ALLEGES IS
UNSERVED AS AN ENCLAVE OF FIVE
HOMES, ONE OF WHICH RECENTLY
SOLD FOR NEARLY $7 MILLION.
RANCHO SANTA FE IN SAN DIEGO
COUNTY ISN'T A PRIORITY AREA IN
2021 PER THE U. S CENSUS. THE
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF
RANCHO SANTA FE WAS $196,500
PERCENT OF RANCHO SANTA FE,
FAMILIES LIVE IN POVERTY. THE
CALIFORNIA BROADBAND INTERACTIVE
MAP INDICATES THE AREA IS FULLY
COVERED BY EITHER CHARTER OR COX
SERVICE THAT BOTH OXFORD GIGABIT
SERVICE IN THE AREA AND THAT
ADOPTION TOPS 80. YET THE MAP
INDICATES THE AREA NEEDS NEARLY
$4.9 MILLION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
ACCOUNT SUBSIDIES. AND IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY. THE PRIORITY
AREAS MAP INCLUDES MOST OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES AND RPV AS
IT'S KNOWN LOCALLY, THE
HOMEOWNERSHIP RATE IS 78% THE
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS JUST
UNDER 150,000 YEAR, NEARLY TWICE
THE CALIFORNIA MEDIAN. AND AGAIN
PER THE CALIFORNIA BROADBAND
INTERACTIVE MAP. THE AREAS
COVERED BY BOTH COX CABLE
SERVICE AND FRONTIER FIBER
SERVICE, BOTH OF WHICH
ADVERTISED SPEEDS UP TO A BIG
GIGABIT AND THE AREA HAS
ADOPTION RATES OF 80% PLUS FOR
THOSE SERVICES. NEARLY EVERYONE
IN RPV CURRENTLY HAS FAST,
RELIABLE SERVICE THEY CAN EASILY
AFFORD. CALABASAS AND MALIBU
HILLS ARE ALSO PRIORITIZED. AND
I LIKE TO PICTURE THE
KARDASHIANS AND CALLEBAUT AND
CALABASAS CELEBRATING LIKE LIP
FILLERS. FOR ALL WE GET,
PROBABLY BROAD, PUBLICLY
SUBSIDIZED BRADMAN FINALLY, AND
GLENN COAST, MAYBE IN MALIBU
HILLS, TAKING COMFORT THAT SHE'S
A CPUC PRIORITY AS YOU PROCESSES
OR ASPIRIN, OSCAR SNUBS.
MEANWHILE THE PRIORITY AREAS MAP
EXCLUDES EVERY SINGLE COMMUNITY
IN THE HEART OF L, A COUNTY, ALL
OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND CITIES
WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF
LARGEST NUMBERS OF DISCONNECTED
PEOPLE IN THE MOST POPULOUS
COUNTY IN THE STATE HAVE BEEN
LEFT OUT, INCLUDING NEARLY ALL
OF ITS MOST DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES AND ALL OF LOS
ANGELES, HISTORICALLY REDLINED
NEIGHBORHOODS. WHICH BRINGS ME
TO OUR SECOND CONCERN. SPENDING
IS ALLOCATED, AS INDICATED IN
THAT PRIORITY AREAS MAP AND
AGAIN. WE'VE HEARD SOME
DIFFERENT COMMENTARY HERE THAN
WE HAVE IN PUBLICLY IN PUBLIC
DOCUMENTATION AND IN PUBLIC
COMMENT AS RECENTLY AS LAST
WEEK. UM WE'RE AT RISK OF
SQUANDERING THIS HISTORIC
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE INVESTMENTS
THAT MEANINGFULLY SUSTAINABLY
CLOSE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE. THE
SINGLE BEST PREDICTOR OF WHETHER
YOU HAVE FASTER, RELIABLE
INTERNET IS WHETHER YOU CAN
AFFORD IT STATEWIDE, EVEN AS
ACCESS AT THE SLOWEST SPEED HAS
INCREASED FOR EVERYONE. THE GAP
IN ACCESS BETWEEN THE POOR AND
WEALTHY CALIFORNIANS PERSISTS
LARGELY UNCHANGED IN 20 YEARS.
BY RELEASING A PRIORITIZATION
SCHEME THAT ALMOST ENTIRELY
EXCLUDES THE MOST DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES FROM CONSIDERATION.
THE COMMISSION HAS POSITIONED
THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT
DEPLOYMENT TO DOUBLE DOWN ON THE
DIVIDE AND NOT CLOSE IT. SO OUR
THIRD AND FINAL CONCERN LAST
WEEK. I SHOULDN'T SAY FINAL. THE
THIRD CONCERN WILL TALK ABOUT
TODAY. LAST WEEK, A MEMBER OF
THE DIGITAL EQUITY L. A
COALITION IN CONVERSATION WITH
THE CPC STAFF MEMBER SUMMARIZED
IT AS G GO GARBAGE IN GARBAGE
OUT. THE PRIORITY AREAS. MAP
REFLECTS A POSSIBLE GUY GO
SITUATION IN TWO WAYS. FIRST
RATHER THAN RELYING ON
DEPLOYMENT AND SUBSCRIBER DATA
PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO THE PUC
UNDER SEAL AT A LEVEL OF
GRANULARITY REQUIRED BY STATUTE
IN DEVELOPING THE PRIORITY AREAS
AND ASSOCIATED COST
PROFITABILITY AND SUBSIDY
MODELING. THE COMMISSION
COMMISSION RELIED ON A
COMBINATION OF WE'VE HEARD COST
QUEST DATA AND MODELING ON
FOREIGN 4 77 DATA, WHICH IS
NOTORIOUSLY INACCURATE DATA
PROVIDED BY SPS TO THE FCC WITH
NO VALIDATION. AND A SET OF
VAGUELY DEFINED OR ACTUALLY NOT
DEFINED AT ALL. BLOCK LEVEL CPUC
DATA. AND SECOND IN DEVELOPING
THE PRIORITY AREAS. COMMISSION
STAFF LEVERAGED ONLY THIS MIX OF
CENSUS BLOCK LEVEL AVAILABILITY
DATA. THERE WAS NO SERVICE
QUALITY DATA INCLUDED NO SPEED
TEST DATA BEYOND THAT, WHICH MAY
HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN WHATEVER
THAT BLOCK LEVEL. CPUC DATA WAS
NO ADOPTION DATA AND MOST
EGREGIOUSLY NO DATA AROUND NEED
. THE SOCIOECONOMIC
VULNERABILITY INDEX WAS APPLIED
TO THE PRIORITY AREAS AFTER THEY
WERE DEVELOPED NOT AS A PART OF
DEVELOPING THEM. INDEED THE 22
PAGE REPORT DOCUMENTING THE
PROCESS OF METHODS UTILIZED TO
DEVELOP THE PRIORITY AREAS DOES
NOT INCLUDE EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF
THE PHRASE DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES. THESE THREE
CONCERNS SIT ATOP SOME REAL
BAFFLEMENT ON OUR PART THAT THE
PRIORITY AREAS, MAP SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION'S
OWN GUIDANCE GUIDANCE THAT WE
PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDING
AND WE REALLY SUPPORTED THAT
DECISION. QUOTED FROM THAT
RELEVANT DECISION AGAIN PAGE
SIX. THE PROGRAM WILL USE STATE
OR FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE MONIES
DEPOSITED INTO THE FEDERAL
FUNDING ACCOUNT TO IMPLEMENT A
PROGRAM TO EXPEDITIOUSLY CONNECT
UNSERVED AND UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES. PAGE ONE. OH, ONE
REQUIRE COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
TO INCLUDE DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION, SUCH AS THE NUMBER
OF LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ARE
DISADVANTAGES COMMUNITY STATUS
IN DEVELOPING PRIORITY AREAS.
AND ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE
APPENDIX, THE COMMISSION WILL
RELY ON DATA FROM A VARIETY OF
SERVICES, INCLUDING BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT DATA, SUBSCRIBER DATA
, CROWDSOURCED DATA SERVICE,
QUALITY DATA AND QUALITATIVE
DATA. WHICH BRINGS ME TO OUR
SUGGESTIVE REMEDY AND ON THIS
WORK WITH THE CHAIR DITCH THE
MAPS. GIVEN THE RAPIDLY
APPROACHING DEADLINE TO FIX TO
FEDERAL DOLLARS ALLOCATED LAST
MILD LAST MILE DEPLOYMENT, AS
WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT TODAY.
WE'RE NOT ASKING THAT THE MAP BE
REVISED FOR USE AND IMPLEMENTING
THE FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNT.
THAT SHIP SEEMS TO HAVE SAILED.
INSTEAD WE RESPECTFULLY AND
HUMBLY SUGGEST THAT THE
COMMISSION MAKE MINOR REVISIONS
TO THE DECISION TO RENAME THE
PRIORITY AREAS TO BUSINESS
OPPORTUNITY AREAS OR SOMETHING
SIMILAR, REVISED THE APPLICATION
SCORING RUBRIC TO REMOVE OR AT
LEAST DRAMATICALLY REDUCED THE
20 POINTS AWARDED FROM PROPOSING
TO BUILD IN ONE OF THOSE AREAS.
AND REMOVE THE DIRECTION TO THE
COMMUNICATIONS DIFFERENT
DEVELOPED PRIORITY AREAS BECAUSE
THERE JUST ISN'T TIME. ALL
CHANGES FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE LETTER OF SB 1, 56 AND
CHANGES THAT WILL BRING FEDERAL
FUNDING ACCOUNT IMPLEMENTATION
MORE FULLY IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE
SPIRIT AND INTENT OF SENT ABOUT
1 56. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
TIME. GOOD I THINK IT'S STILL
MORNING. GOOD MORNING CHAIR IN
MEMBERS, TRACY RYAN WITH THE
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE
CALIFORNIA WE REPRESENT 40 WORLD
COUNTIES WHERE, UM, LARGE
MAJORITY OF THOSE UNSERVED IN
RURAL AREAS LIVE. UM I WANT TO
BEGIN WITH THE CONCLUSION AND,
UM, THAT IS WE ARE BOTH CONFUSED
AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRIORITY
MAPS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M
HEARING FROM THIS MEMBERSHIP AS
WELL, UM FROM A HIGH LEVEL WE
THAT THE PRIORITY MAPS WE NEED
TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS THE
PURPOSE? ARE THEY JUST A GUIDE
TO HELP WITH A BUSINESS CASE, OR
ARE THEY A BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
AND IN THE DOCUMENTATION, THE
CPU CS DOCUMENTATION ON THEIR
WEBSITE? IT REALLY ISN'T CLEAR
AND I'LL GO THROUGH THAT A
LITTLE BIT LATER. UM WHY ARE
SOME AREAS EXCLUDED? AND WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT THAT? SHANE HAS
TALKED ABOUT THAT, AND I'LL GIVE
YOU A COUPLE EXAMPLES FROM THE
RURAL COMMUNITIES AS WELL. AND
HOW DOES THIS FIT WITH THE
MANDATE AND SB 1 56 AND THE
PROGRAM TO SERVE THOSE IN NEED?
AND LASTLY, CAN WE FIX IT WITH
THE TIME CONSTRAINTS? SO MAPS
APPEAR TO BE IMPORTANT ELEMENT
OF THE PROCESS. UH, NEWLY
RELEASED DOCUMENTATION SAYS THAT
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS MUST BE IN THE
PRIORITY AREAS. NOW THERE'S A
THERE'S A PROCESS TO AUGMENT THE
PRIORITY AREAS SO AN APPLICANT
CAN SAY OH, THERE'S THIS
UNSERVED AREA. I WANT TO ADD TO
IT, BUT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO
THROUGH A PROCESS TO ADD TO THAT
PRIORITY AREA AS PART OF THE
APPLICATION, OR THIS IS WHAT I'M
GETTING FROM THE USER GUIDE. UM
AND THAT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC
BECAUSE THERE'S A PROCESS THAT
YOU HAVE TO DO IN PART OF THE
PROCESS IS TO SAY IF THERE ARE
SERVED AREAS WITHIN THE NEW AREA
THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO
THE PRIORITY PROJECT AREA. UM
YOU HAVE TO HAVE RATIONALE FOR
WHY YOU'RE YOU ARE INCLUDING
SERVED AREAS WELL. I THINK
THAT'S INTERESTING IN THAT AND
I'LL GO INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT
MORE LATER IN MY TESTIMONY. UM A
LOT OF THE LOCATIONS IN THE
PRIORITY AREAS ARE ACTUALLY
SERVED. UM AND I'LL TELL YOU
ABOUT ONE OF OUR COUNTIES AND
WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. AND SO
IT SEEMS TO BE. THERE'S A IT'S
AGAIN MOVES, I WOULD SAY SEEMS
VERY CONFUSING ABOUT HOW DID THE
MAPS REALLY WORK? HOW DID THE
PRIORITY AREAS INFLUENCE WHERE
YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD? AND HOW
MUCH CAN HOW MUCH IS THE FUNDING
AND THAT'S THE OTHER PART OF IT
IS THE PRIORITY AREAS HAVE A
FUNDING ALLOCATION ATTACHED TO
THEM. SO IF YOU LOOK THE
PRIORITY AREA, IT WILL SAY, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS THE AMOUNT FOR
WHAT WE THE ESTIMATE FOR THE
PROJECTS IN THAT AREA, AND WE
DON'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW
THAT WORKS. IS THAT A HARD LINE
? THAT'S WHAT YOU WILL GET
FUNDED FOR, UM OR IS IT JUST A
GUIDELINE? UM BECAUSE THE, UM
THE ESTIMATED ALLOCATION DOESN'T
ACCOUNT FOR A NUMBER OF FACTORS
ON THE GROUND AND LET ME GIVE
YOU SOME EXAMPLES. SO AN ALPINE
COUNTY. UM COST ESTIMATES ARE
SEEM TO BE EXCESSIVELY LOW FOR
VERY HEAVILY FORESTED AREAS AND
FIRE PRONE AREAS THAT NEED TO
BE, UM, EXTENSIVELY. UM FIRE
HARDENED. ANOTHER PROJECT AREA
IN ALPINE HAS VERY LARGE PARCELS
. AND THAT MEANS YOU'RE GONNA
NEED UM ADDITIONAL EXTENDED
CONNECTIONS, WHICH IS AN
ADDITIONAL COST. UM IN ALPINE
COUNTY AS WELL. BEAR VALLEY HAS
ABOUT 500 LOCATIONS THAT ARE
UNSERVED COMPLETELY AND IT'S
FIVE MILES FROM A PRIORITY AREA
THAT STOPS ON THE COUNTY LINE OF
CALIPARI'S. YET THAT'S NOT
CONSIDERED IN A PRIORITY AREA.
AND THOSE ARE 500 LOCATIONS ARE
COMPLETELY UNSERVED. IN THE
KIRKWOOD AREA, WHICH STRADDLES
THREE COUNTIES AND SHOWS HIS
UNSERVED ON THE FCC MAP. UM ARE
NOT INCLUDING A PRIORITY AREA,
AND SOME MIGHT SAY PRIOR IT'S A
KIRKWOOD. IT'S A SKI RESORT. BUT
THE REALITY IS THERE'S A
WORKFORCE THERE. THERE'S A
COMMUNITY THERE AND ITS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
THE BROADBAND WHEN YOU HAVE THE
TOURISM IN THAT AREA. ANOTHER
COUNTY QUICKLY THAT I WANNA
WANNA REFERENCES TUOLUMNE
COUNTY. AND LOOKING AT THEIR MAP
, 77% OF THE LOCATIONS AND THE
PRIORITY AND THE PRIORITY AREAS
ARE SERVED. THE PRIORITY AREAS
WITH A MINIMUM OF 50% UNSERVED
MAKEUP ONLY 7% OF THE PRIORITY
AREA LOCATIONS. 7.9 MILLION IS
TARGETED FOR A PRIORITY. WHERE
PRIORITY AREA WHERE 89% OF
LOCATIONS ARE SERVED BY MAJORITY
WITH GIGABIT SPEED. FURTHER THE
CENTRAL REGION CONTAINS 45% OF
ALL PRIORITY AREA LOCATIONS WITH
ONLY 27% OF THOSE UNSERVED. IT
SEEMS TO US THAT THE PUC IS KIND
OF TAKING A TOP DOWN APPROACH TO
PUTTING TOGETHER THE PRIORITY
AREAS, AND I THINK THAT THAT
COUNTERS A LOT OF THE EFFORTS AT
THE STATE IS TAKING WITH
BROADBAND. THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT TECHNOLOGY IS HAVING
NUMEROUS WORKING GROUPS STATE
STRATEGY PLANNING GROUPS.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION
INFORMATION AGENCY HAS UH,
PLANNING WORKSHOPS FOR BEAD AND
THE SHEER EXISTENCE OF BROADBAND
CONSORTIUM. I MEAN, THIS IS THIS
IS BEEN A COMMUNITY UP PROCESS
UNTIL NOW, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE
KNOW THE LITERAL LAY OF THE LAND
. WE KNOW WHAT THE TOPOGRAPHY
IS. WE KNOW WHERE THE FORESTS
ARE. WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF
BARRIERS THERE ARE TO ACTUAL
DEPLOYMENT. SO WHAT WE ARE
ASKING FOR SPECIFICALLY LOOKING
FOR HERE IS THAT THERE'S A
CLEARER MESSAGE ON TIMELINE AND
PROCESS, INCLUDING, UM YOU KNOW
HOW WE CAN HELP THEM. WE WANT TO
BE A PARTNER WITH THE PC AND
THIS BODY TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM
WE'RE ABLE TO GET THIS MONEY OUT
IN A TIMELY MANNER. UM SECOND,
WE WANT TO SEE THE UNDERLYING
DATA. IF WE ARE GOING TO BUILD
IN THESE PRIORITY AREAS, WE NEED
TO LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING DATA.
UM AND TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY
CAME UP WITH THE COST ESTIMATES
AND THE PRIORITY AREAS
THEMSELVES. LASTLY UM,
ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS AND
HAVING A PROCESS FOR THAT, AND
YOU TALKED ABOUT A FEEDBACK LOOP
, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THAT A LITTLE MORE OPEN,
AND I WAS HEARTENED TO HEAR THE
THINGS THAT PRESIDENT, REYNOLDS
SAID IN HER OPENING AND TALKING
ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE
COMMUNITY CASEWORKERS. I THINK
THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. UM AND SO I
THINK THAT THIS IS AN
UNPRECEDENTED UNDERTAKING BY THE
PUC. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND
WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO
PARTNER WITH THEM AND OUR URBAN
COUNTERPARTS. BECAUSE REALLY,
WE'RE MORE SIMILAR THAN WERE
DISSIMILAR. UM TO GET OUR
UNSERVED FOLKS SERVED. THANK
YOU. UM AND THANK YOU FOR BOTH
FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS. I
APPRECIATE THAT. YOU BOTH BRING
THE RURAL AND URBAN PERSPECTIVES
AND TAKE AWAY FROM THE MAP. I
THINK YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES I
THINK YOU JUST SAID IT BEST MISS
RYAN THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE
SIMILARITIES THAN DIFFERENCES.
AH AND THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE
CASE. UM AND SO I HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS AND OPEN UP TO MY
FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AND I
WANT TO THANK UH SO I REMEMBER
GARCIA FOR JOINING US, UM, FOR
THE COUNTY'S YOU REPRESENT THIS
TRACES THIS FOR YOU. UM, HOW
MUCH IS THIS MAP HAVING EFFECT
ON HOW THOSE COUNTIES ARE
APPROACHING THE PLANNING FOR THE
LAST MILE? I THINK WE ARE
RECEIVING A LOT OF QUESTIONS. UM
ABOUT THE MAP AND HOW I MEAN
GOING BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT I
SAID. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT
WORKS. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS
THE COUNTY IS LIKE, WELL, CAN WE
BUILD OTHER PLACES? CAN WE CAN
WE PUT THAT AS PART OF A
PROJECT? HOW DOES THAT ACTUALLY
WORK BECAUSE THEY'RE UNSERVED
AREAS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE
DECISION, IT SAYS, YOU KNOW THAT
YOU CAN BUILT OUT TO ANSWER
VARIOUS SO I THINK IT IS. IT IS
IMPEDING OUR ABILITY TO PLAN SIX
MONTHS OUT FOR USING THIS
FUNDING AND FOR THE OTHER
FUNDING THAT WILL BE COMING
DOWN. OKAY AND THANK YOU AND
SHARE. I THINK YOU INTEGRATED
INTO YOUR COMMENTS. BUT I'D LIKE
YOU TO REPEAT BECAUSE I THINK
YOU HAD A VERY GOOD IDEA. AND
MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A GUIDE FOR
THE CPC. SHOULD THEY CONTINUE
WITH THE MAPS? UM, WHICH AGAIN?
I WOULD THROW HIM OUT. BUT IF
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE, UM WHAT
WOULD THE ALTERNATIVE METRICS
THAT COULD BE USED FOR
INTEGRATING EQUITY INTO THE
PROGRAMS? SO UH, THE DECISION
ACTUALLY ALREADY INCLUDES A FAIR
AMOUNT OF THAT. SO IF WE WERE TO
JUST REMOVE THIS 20 POINT
CATEGORY, WHICH, AS OF RIGHT NOW
SEEMS TO ONLY ADDRESS THE
PRIORITY AREAS, MAPS AND THEN
HAS LIKE A SENTENCE. I DON'T
HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I CAN'T
REMEMBER THE EXACT DETAILS, BUT
IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE, UM,
FACTORS LIKE DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES WILL BE CONSIDERED.
WITH NO DETAILS. WE HAVE NO IDEA
WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS. UM SO
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE
ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO MAYBE
ADD SOME DETAILS. IF THAT'S LIKE
A PERCENTAGE OF A PERCENTAGE OF
ADOPTION COMPARED TO ALLEGED
SERVICE. IF IT'S THERE'S ANY
NUMBER OF WAYS YOU COULD
CONTEMPLATE IT, UM MAYBE
ACTUALLY KIND OF DEFINE THAT AND
MAKE THAT THE POINTS BASIS
INSTEAD OR DITCH THAT 20 POINTS
ALTOGETHER, AND THERE ARE IN
FACT, WITHIN THE OTHER KIND OF
POINTS IN THAT. THE OTHER PIECES
IN THAT RUBRIC. I THINK THEY DO
LARGELY COVER IT AGAIN IN TERMS
OF KIND OF REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW
INCOME SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PRICING OR LIGHT OR INCENTIVES
FOR PRICING, I SHOULD SAY, AND
INCENTIVES FOR COVERING THE
WHOLE AREA. ALL OF THAT. AND A
FINAL QUESTION. I MEAN, I HOPE
ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN TAKE
AWAY FROM THIS OVERSIGHT
HEARINGS, NOT ONLY HAVING OUR
QUESTIONS ANSWERED, BUT ALSO TO
PROVIDE SOME VERBAL GUIDANCE. UM
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE
IS TO REVISE. UM THE PROCESS
THAT THE CPUC HAS ALREADY
UNDERTAKEN. IT'S A MINIMUM OF 30
DAYS. AND IF WE'RE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE TIMELINE, UM WHAT
WOULD BE FROM EACH OF YOUR
PERSPECTIVES THE BEST WAY TO
REMEDY THE CURRENT SITUATION. I
MEAN, I KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO,
BUT I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE GOING
TO DO THAT. SO WHAT ARE OTHER
OPTIONS? UH HUH. I MIGHT NEED
MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT WHAT
THAT SPECIFICS ARE, BUT I DO
THINK YOU KNOW THERE. THERE IS
ACTUALLY A PRECEDENT EVEN KIND
OF WITHIN THIS DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION MAKING KIND OF MINOR
CHANGES ON A FAIRLY FAST
TIMELINE. UM AND NOT ALL OF
THOSE CHANGES AND OUR COMMISSION
FRIENDS WILL. I'M SURE CORRECT
ME WHEN I'M WRONG. UM I THOUGHT
ALL SETS OF CHANGES ACTUALLY DO
REQUIRE THE 30 DAYS IN THE HOLE,
COMMENT AND REPLY PERIOD AND ALL
THAT SORT OF THERE ARE SETS OF
CHANGES THAT THEY CAN MAKE THE
DON'T REQUIRE THAT PROCESS, AND
I DO ACTUALLY THINK THAT AGAIN
THE DECISION AS A WHOLE AND THE
RUBRIC AND KIND OF HOW THIS
WHOLE THING WAS APPROACHED, IN
PART DUE TO YOU KNOW, A VERY
THOROUGH PROCEEDING WITH LOTS
AND LOTS OF PARTIES, INCLUDING
INDUSTRY, WHICH IS ALWAYS A
PARTY AT THE PUC AND LOTS OF
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND
LOCALITIES THAT HAVE NEVER
PARTICIPATED BEFORE, SO IT WAS A
VERY ROBUST PROCEEDING. AND I
THINK THAT THE COMMISSION
DECISION ULTIMATELY REALLY
REFLECTED THAT. UM IT'S IN THIS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ONE THING
I THINK THEY'VE GONE AWRY. AND
UM AND I THINK THERE CAN BE VERY
MINOR CHANGES THAT MAYBE DON'T
TRIGGER THE WHOLE PROCESS. AND
EITHER WAY, EVEN IF WE SAID WE
NEEDED 30 DAYS TO MAKE THESE
SMALL FIXES, THAT IS A FRACTION
OF THE TIME THAT WOULD BE
NECESSARY TO GO BACK AND
ACTUALLY GET TO A PLACE REVIEWS
. SOME VERSION OF THIS PRIORITY
MAP IS GOING TO BE USEFUL. I
DON'T THINK THAT EVERYTHING ADD.
I THINK SHE SAID IT WELL. SO HOW
I, YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID IT, BUT
IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO ME. HOW
WOULD YOU INCORPORATE THE
UNDERSERVED ELEMENT THAT YOU SAY
IS DEFINITELY IN THE BILL? SO
THE, UM THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU COULD
DEFINE UNDERSERVED. I THINK ONE
THING THAT'S HELPFUL TO MAYBE
TAKE A STEP BACK IS WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THESE UNSERVED LOCATIONS
AND EVEN I THINK WE'VE DONE IT
AND AS ADVOCATES, WE DO THIS ON
THE REGULAR WE ARE PRETENDING AT
A LEVEL OF CERTAINTY AND
SPECIFICITY THAT DOES NOT EXIST
AND WILL NEVER EXIST. IF OUR IF
OUR CONTENTION IS THAT WE CAN'T
GET THIS RIGHT UNTIL WE HAVE AN
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY OF EVERY
SERVICEABLE LOCATION, INCLUDING
S¼ APARTMENT UNITS AND APARTMENT
BUILDINGS, WHICH IS A HUGE PART
OF THE ISSUE IN URBAN AREAS,
INCLUDING S¼, 2ND AND 3RD LIKE
DWELLINGS AND VERBAL IN RURAL
AREAS IN THE US AND THERE'S
THERE IS NOT A UNIVERSE WHERE
WE'RE GOING TO GET A PERFECT
UNDERSTANDING OF EVERY LOCATION
THAT SHOULD GET SERVED. UM AND
WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE ACTUALLY
SERVES IT WITH FAST, RELIABLE
SERVICE. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO GET
COMFORTABLE WITH IS A KIND OF
SET OF DATA THAT TOGETHER PAINTS
OUR PICTURE. AND SO THERE IS
WHAT THE SPS HAVE SAY THEY DO
AND WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE OFFERS
AT WHAT LOCATIONS THERE IS
WHATEVER IS GOING TO HAPPEN AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL AT THE STATE
LEVEL OF LIKE GETTING A HANDLE,
WE THINK ON THE LOCATIONS AND
TRYING TO ANSWER THE MDU
QUESTION. BUT THEN THERE'S LOOK
IF YOU HAVE AN AREA AND THE PUC
DOES THIS ON AND IN SOME THINGS
, I THINK IN PARTICULAR, LIKE
AROUND FIXED WIRELESS, UM, WHERE
THEY SAY ALL RIGHT, IF I IF A
SERVICE PROVIDER SAYS WE PROVIDE
GIGABIT SERVICE TO EVERYONE IN
THIS AREA, AND YET THEY HAVE 10
SUBSCRIBERS. YEAH THAT'S A
THAT'S A QUESTION, RIGHT? AND
THEN YOU THE CENSUS SAYS,
ACTUALLY, 50% OF HOUSEHOLDS IN
THIS COMMUNITY DO NOT HAVE AN
INTERNET. SUBSCRIPTION LIKE
THOSE THREE SETS OF DATA
PROBABLY PAINT A MUCH MORE
ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE
COMMUNITY IN QUESTION THAN IF WE
WERE TO GRIND OURSELVES AND THE
PUC COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
STAFF WERE TO GRIND ITSELF.
TRYING TO GET TO A LEVEL OF
SPECIFICITY AND ACCURACY AT THE
LOCATION LEVEL THAT THEY CAN'T
AND SO I THINK THAT'S HOW WE GET
TO THIS UNDERSERVED IS YOU CAN
ACTUALLY AGAIN. PROVIDE POINTS.
YOU CAN PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF,
UM OF A GIVEN PROJECT THAT TAKES
THAT KIND OF TOTALITY OF WHAT'S
ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN A
COMMUNITY INTO ACCOUNT. IF I MAY
ASK ONE FOR YOU CAN HAVE
UNDERSERVED AND NOT UNSERVED.
YOU CAN. ACCORDING TO THE
STATUTE YOU CAN BUT IN THAT WILL
EXIST IN THE WORLD. MY QUESTION
FOR SURE. SO THAT'S WHERE WE
MIGHT BE MISSING FOLKS, BECAUSE
THE WAY THAT WAS PRESENTED
EARLIER WAS IT'S UNSERVED. THEN
YOU HAVE A SUBSET OF PRIORITY
WITHIN THE UNSERVED, AND THAT'S
THE ONLY WAY THAT WE'RE DOING
THIS HERE. BUT WHAT I WANT TO
KNOW FROM YOU IS YOU CAN HAVE
UNDERSERVED OUTSIDE OF THE
ANSWER SERVED AND WE MIGHT BE
MISSING THOSE FOLKS. WE
ABSOLUTELY ARE MISSING THOSE
FOLKS. I CAN SAY THAT IS I JUST
GOT DONE SAYING YOU CAN'T BE
CERTAIN ABOUT ANYTHING. I THINK
MY RURAL FRIEND CAN BE TOTALLY
AGREE ON THIS. WE CAN BE CERTAIN
THAT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
OKAY AND YOU SAY YOU'RE NEVER
GOING TO DRILL DOWN 110% ON IT,
BUT NONETHELESS, WE CAN GET A
LITTLE CLOSER THAN WHAT WOULD
HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE ACTING
WITH IMPERFECT INFORMATION
BECAUSE WE WILL NEVER HAVE
UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY? DID
YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT OR NO
? YOU'RE GOOD BEEN TOUCHED ON
APOLOGIZE FOR ARRIVING NIGHT.
UM, WE HAVE RECEIVED QUITE A BIT
OF FEEDBACK ON THE MAPS. THAT
WOULD JUST ROLLED OUT AND THE
WEIGHT THAT THESE MAPS WILL
CARRY AS IT RELATES TO THE
PRIORITIZATION. WE SERVE.
IMPERIAL COUNTY, VERY RURAL.
EASTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ALSO
COMPONENTS OF SOME MORALITY, BUT
UM SOME METROPOLITAN LIKE
COMMUNITY AS WELL. WHAT TYPE OF
FEEDBACK HAVE YOU RECEIVED ABOUT
THE MAPS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S
ENCOMPASSING KIND OF
PIGGYBACKING OFF OF THE
CONVERSATION HERE ON OR
UNDERSERVED? WHAT TYPE OF
FEEDBACK HAVE YOU RECEIVED FROM
YOUR MEMBERS OF YOUR
ASSOCIATIONS AND HAVE THEY
RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT HOW MUCH
WEIGHT OF MAPS WILL CARRY TO
DETERMINE FUNDING PRIORITIES.
YEAH ABSOLUTELY. I WILL. JUST I
THINK IT'S UM VERY EASY DANCER.
YES WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, UM
HOW THE PRIORITY MAPS WERE DRAWN
THE NUMBER OF SERVED IN SOME OF
THOSE AREAS AND THE NUMBER OF
UNSERVED THAT ARE NOT IN THOSE
AREAS FOR RURAL AREAS, AND SO
I'LL LET GINA TALK A LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT THE URBAN AREAS. I
WOULD DESCRIBE THE FEEDBACK
WE'RE GETTING AS ALARM. UM AND
UH, IT'S A WEIRD CONTEXT TO USE
THIS WORD, BUT AND KIND OF HURT,
I GUESS. UM UH AND I WOULD SAY
THAT KIND OF IN TWO WAYS. ONE IS
THAT YOU KNOW, THESE COMMUNITIES
HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS
PROCESS, THE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS, THE SMALLER
CITIES, THE EDUCATION
ORGANIZATIONS THERE THAT THAT WE
HAVE A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN IN THE
COUNTY VALLEY THAT HAS BEEN
DOING EVERYTHING IT CAN TO
FIGURE OUT PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIPS AND HOW TO BE ABLE
TO SERVE ITS UNSERVED KIDS. UM
AND THEY THIS MAP COMES OUT THAT
SAYS PRIORITY ON TOP OF IT,
WHICH YOU KNOW WHETHER IT WAS
INTENTIONAL OR NOT. WHAT HAS
HAPPENED NOW IS THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS PUBLISHED A MAP
THAT SAYS PRIORITY ON THE TOP OF
IT THAT EXCLUDES ALL OF THESE
COMMUNITIES. UM AND SO THERE IS
KIND OF ALARM AT WHAT THE
IMPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE.
FOR THEIR WORK TO SERVE THEIR
COMMUNITIES, AND THERE IS AH,
YEAH, I GUESS KIND OF SOME HURT
THAT YET AGAIN. THESE
COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE AGAIN
MOSTLY BLACK AND BROWN ARE LOW
INCOME OR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES
HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FOR THE CHAIR
. IF WITH YOUR PERMISSION, IF
MAYBE WE CAN HAVE PRESIDENT
REYNOLDS OR MEMBER OF HER TEAM
RESPOND TO THE QUESTION OF NOT
ALREADY. RESPONDED TO PRIOR
PANEL. I THINK IT WAS COVERED IN
THE FIRST PANEL. OKAY THAT'S
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IT WAS
THERE. CAN I SAY? CAN I GET SOME
THAT THERE IS SOME REMEDIAL
COURSE OF ACTION THAT HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED OR I THINK WHAT WE
WERE GIVEN AT THE BEGINNING WAS
THE IT'S IN THE PRESENTATION
ABOUT WHAT THE FEEDBACK LOOP
WOULD BE. I THINK THERE'S BEEN
CONCERN EXPRESSED. UM, BUT I
THINK EVERY MEMBER OF THOSE
PRESENT HERE TODAY ABOUT THE
TIME IT WILL TAKE TO REMEDY THE
SITUATION. UM AND THE TIMELINE
OF GETTING THE DOLLARS OUT. UM
AND I THINK YOU KNOW, THERE'S
BEEN SOME PROPOSALS MADE. I
THINK THIS I THINK SOMEBODY
SUGGESTED REMOVING THE POINTS OF
THE PRIORITY AREAS. I DON'T
THINK IT REMEDIES, THE HURT AND
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT WORD TO
USE. I THINK, UM, I THINK THERE
YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT JOBS THAT WE
HAVE, AS LEGISLATORS IS CREATING
TRUST IN GOVERNMENT. AND THE
PROCESS WAS ROBUST. HAD THE
POTENTIAL TO CREATE THAT TRUST.
AND WHEN THAT PRIORITY AREA MAP
CAME OUT. IT FELT LIKE THAT
TRUST MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROKEN.
AND WE'RE CREATING TRUST IN THE
PROCESS AND IN A TIMELY MANNER
WILL BE CHALLENGING. THANK YOU.
THAT'S THE SUMMARY. THAT'S LIKE
EVERY EMOTIONAL POSITION. I
WATCHED THE TAPE AND I'LL, UH,
ALSO, UH, APOLOGIZE AGAIN FOR
ARRIVING LATE. WELL I WANT TO
THANK YOU, MISS ENGLAND, MISS
RYAN FOR PARTICIPATING THE
HEARING. IF YOU WANT TO MOVE TO
PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO IF YOU WANT
TO TAKE YOUR SEATS AGAIN. SO
WE'LL NOW TURN TO PUBLIC
COMMENTS IN THE ROOM. MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WHO MAY WISH TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT MAY NOW
APPROACH THE MIC. THE COMMITTEE
WILL ALSO RECEIVE WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS THAT WERE SHARED WITH
EACH MEMBER'S OFFICE IN ADVANCE
AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC EYE AS
YOU KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO TWO
MINUTES EACH, PLEASE BEGIN WITH
YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION. MADAM
CHAIR. I'M HERE TODAY
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY FUND. MY
NAME IS RICHARD POLANCO. I HAD
THE HONOR OF SERVING IN THIS
GREAT INSTITUTION FOR 16 YEARS.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA EMERGING EMERGING
TECHNOLOGY FUND. WE'VE PROVIDED
EACH MEMBER WITH A THREE PAGE
LETTER WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
. I DO WANT TO GO ON RECORD
PUBLICLY. WE RECOMMEND THAT ALL
THE MAPS, UH BOTH FEDERAL AND
CALIFORNIA MAPS, UH, BE THROWN
OUT, UH, ALL PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
AND INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE
SHOULD BE BASED ON PERFORMANCE
TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT TO THE
HARDEST TO REACH UNSERVED AREAS.
THOSE UNSERVED AREAS ONE RURAL
AND REMOTE COMMUNITIES,
INCLUDING ALL TRIBAL LANDS
SECOND. HIGH PRIORITY URBAN
AREAS. MAPS SHOULD ONLY BE USED
FOR INFORMATION AND NOT TO
CONTROL THE GRANTS. LET ME VERY
QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE POINT ON
THE RECOMMENDATIONS SET ASIDE
ALL MAPS. AS A DECIDING FACTOR
IN GRANTS FOR THE LAST MILD
PROJECTS DECLARED THAT ANY HOME
OR LOCATION SHOULD BE ACTUAL. BY
ACTUAL DATA, BE UNDERSERVED
SHALL BE ALGEBRA, ALL TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FOR
THE LAST MILE PROJECT GRANT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ADVANCED SERVICES
FUND. PRIORITIZED GRANTS TO
DEPLOY TO THE HARDEST TO REACH
UNSERVED AREAS. DO NOT CONSIDER
OTHER APPLICATIONS UNTIL ALL
APPLICATIONS FOR HARDEST TO
REACH AREAS HAVE BEEN FUNDED.
AND LASTLY, MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF
THIS THREE YEAR LEADERSHIP
CONVENE OVER THE NEXT FOUR WEEKS
EVERY FRIDAY, TWO O'CLOCK BRING
THE STAKEHOLDERS A BILLION
DOLLARS IS AT STAKE. HMM
MILLIONS OF FAMILIES. MAY LOSE
OUT ON THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
LINDA THOMAS. I LIVE IN FRESNO
COUNTY AND I WAS MOTIVATED BY
EXTREME ANXIETY AND HURT. WHEN I
SAW THE MAPS, I SAT ON THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY REGIONAL
BROADBAND CONSORTIUM. I ALSO
SERVED AS AN EDUCATOR IN FRESNO
COUNTY FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS IN
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM. UM
RECENTLY BEFORE MY RETIREMENT, I
WAS THE VICE CHANCELLOR AT WEST
HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
IN COALINGA. UM I WANT TO TALK A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE WEST SIDE
OF FRESNO COUNTY. UM IT'S AN
AREA WHERE THE WORDS UNSERVED
AND UNDERSERVED ARE
OVERSTATEMENTS. THERE IS
LITERALLY NO INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S AN AREA WHERE A ROUGHLY 50%
OF THE POPULATION IS BELOW THE
POVERTY LEVEL. 90% OF THE
STUDENTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FREE
LUNCH. 60% OF THE INDIVIDUALS
IDENTIFY AS LATIN X AND IDENTIFY
ENGLISH AS THEIR SECOND LANGUAGE
. IT'S ALSO AN AREA WHERE AG IS
THE LARGEST EMPLOYER, BUT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS STIFLED
BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF BROAD
BAND. UM PRODUCERS WANT TO
IMPLEMENT EGG TECHNOLOGY, BUT
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO BECAUSE
THERE'S NO BROADBAND THERE TO
LIGHT UP THEIR FIELDS. YOU CAN'T
LIGHT UP A FIELD WITH FIBER YOU
HAVE TO HAVE TOWERS. THAT'S THE
BOTTOM LINE. UM BECAUSE OF
BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS. THIS
AREA WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE SAN
JOAQUIN VALLEY REGIONAL
BROADBAND CONSORTIUM AS THE MOST
PRIORITY AREA IN OUR AREAS OVER
3500 SQUARE MILES AND THE CPU
SEE MAP DID NOT HAVE IT AS A
PRIORITY AT ALL. AND IT WAS
SHOCKING AND I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THAT
THESE MAPS ARE INCORRECT AND
ALSO THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT
THAT THAT THE CPUC SHOULD BE
TECHNOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL,
BECAUSE, UM, USING. I'M SORRY.
USING BROADBAND FOR A HOUSING
PROJECT IS NOT WHAT IT'S FOR.
BROADBAND NEEDS TO BE USED FOR
RURAL AREAS WHERE THERE'S OPEN
TO APOLOGY AND SO RUNNING FIBER
TO THE HOME AND IN RURAL AREAS
AS ANALOGOUS TO RUNNING AN OFFER
HIM TO I FIVE TO EVERY PERSON
WHO LIVES IN A RURAL AREA. IT IS
ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE. THANK
YOU. REMINDER. TWO MINUTES.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OR AS
GONZALEZ WITH NEXT GEN.
CALIFORNIA WE CERTAINLY WANT TO
ALIGN OURSELVES WITH THE
PREVIOUS PANEL, THE LAST PANEL
REGARDING THE MAPS AND THE NEED
TO CHANGE IS I DO WANT TO TAKE
AN OPPORTUNITY. JUST THINK
COMMISSIONER REYNOLDS FOR
MENTIONING THE IMPORTANT ROLE
THAT CASEWORKERS AND REALLY, UH
, DIGITAL NAVIGATORS WILL PLAY
IN BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
AS BASIC AS, UH, JUST
UNDERSTANDING HOW TO USE THE
INTERNET IS IT REMAINS A MAJOR
PROBLEM IN A LOT OF UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES, AND HAVING THESE
INDIVIDUALS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY
WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO ENSURING
THAT THE BROADBAND THAT WE BUILD
IS ACTUALLY UTILIZED BY THOSE
THAT NEED IT MOST. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS, YOLANDA BENSON,
REPRESENTING US TELECOM, THE
BROADBAND ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING FACILITY BASED WIRE
LINE BROADBAND PROVIDERS IN
CALIFORNIA. WE ARE CONCERNED IN
THE LINE ARE COMMENTS WITH SOME
THAT YOU MADE MADAM CHAIR ON THE
TIMELINES. UM AS YOU KNOW, A B
27 49 BY AUTHORED BY
ASSEMBLYWOMAN QUIRK, SILVA WOULD
HAVE PROVIDED ADDITIONAL
TIMELINES TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
MONEY WAS SPENT AND WAS GETTING
OUT. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED WITH
THAT AS PROVIDERS THAT ARE READY
TO GO AND WE'RE READY TO BUILD
OTHER STATES ARE ALREADY
BUILDING WE THEY'RE ALREADY
BUILDING AND HAVE SHOVELED TO
THE GROUND. CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE
IN THAT SAME CATEGORY OF BEING
FIRST. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM MADAM CHAIR IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF TURNING
ALSO ON BEHALF OF CDVA D 92
SEPARATE COMMENTS THAT WILL MAKE
THEM QUICK ON BEHALF OF TURN. UM
YOU'VE ALREADY RECEIVED OUR
LETTER. WE ARE VERY CRITICAL OF
THE MAPS AS IF THEY'VE BEEN
DRAWN UP NOW IN THE METHODOLOGY
WE DO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS AS
FAR AS WAYS TO FIX THE MAPS IN A
WAY THAT WILL SERVE THE
COMMUNITY BETTER. AND WE THINK
THAT IT SHOULD BE A COMBINATION
OF IDENTIFYING UNSERVED AND
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. WE
THINK IT CAN BE DONE IN A TIMELY
FASHION THAT WE CAN CONTINUE
WITH THE TIMELINE TO GET THE
MONEY OUT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
AND AVAILABLE TO BE HELPFUL WITH
THAT ON BEHALF OF CW 89
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UM A COUPLE OF COMMENTS
. ONE IS APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
EARLIER ON THE BEAT PROGRAM WE
THINK AND WE'RE ALREADY IN
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WITH THE
COMMISSION AND OTHERS TO ENSURE
THAT THERE ARE HIGH LABOR
STANDARDS FOR THOSE JOBS. WE'VE
ALSO CREATED A DATABASE NOW
WORKERS REFERRAL SERVICE FOR
WORKERS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO
NEED IT A LOT OF WORKERS TO GET
OUT THERE AND DO THESE PROJECTS
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAPPEN SO
THAT'S PUBLICLY AVAILABLE NOW
WILL PUT OUT THE INFORMATION
WE'RE FINDING WORKERS WHO HAVE
ALREADY WORKED IN BROADBAND IN
OR AVAILABLE TO START NOW ON ANY
OF THESE PROJECTS, SO THANK YOU
FOR THAT. WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH
THIS COMMITTEE, THE COMMISSION
AND WITH AGENCY STATE AND
FEDERAL THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS CAMI PEER WITH COMMON SENSE.
MEDIA WOULD LIKE TO STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
AND THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA.
UM. IT'S MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR
TODAY THAT THESE MAPS NEED
CLARIFICATION AND NEED REVISION
. UM IF WE ARE TO CONNECT THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES THAT NEED
BROADBAND ACCESS THE MOST. UM WE
ARE HAPPY TO BE A PART OF THIS
PROCESS AND ARE GLAD TO HAVE
BEEN A PART OF THE EFFECTIVE
FEEDBACK AND DIALOGUE WITH THE
CPUC. WE'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE
THEIR THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS AREA
. AND WHILE THERE MAY BE WORK
AHEAD, UM WE'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE
THAT, UM, WE'RE READY TO WORK
TOGETHER. SO THIS CPUC THANK YOU
. SO MUCH FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND,
UH, LOOKING FORWARD TO FUTURE
WORK. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AMANDA WELDER, UM WITH
THE CALIFORNIA CABLE AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION.
WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK AS A PARTNER IN THE GOAL
OF SECURING BROADBAND FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. WE UNDERSTAND THE
CONCERNS REGARDING THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAST MILE
BROADBAND PROGRAM AND LOOK
FORWARD TO BEING ENGAGED AS A
PARTNER EFFICIENTLY SWIFTLY AND
SUSTAINABLY BUILDING. LAST MILE
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE.
REGARDING THE PRIORITY AREA MAP
AS IT STANDS, THE EPIPHANY FUNDS
WOULD BE DIVERTED TOWARDS AREAS
THAT ALREADY HAVE HIGH SPEED
INTERNET AVAILABLE. CURRENTLY
THE PRIORITY AREA MAP INCLUDES
OVER 1.5 MILLION ALREADY SERVED
LOCATIONS JUST BY THE THREE
LARGEST CABLE BROADBAND
PROVIDERS IN THE STATE. WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THE TIME THAT
THERE IS INTENT TO UPDATE OR FIX
THIS MAP, BUT THE SHORTENING
TIMELINE IS CONCERNING,
ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THE
PERMITTING PROCESS FOR THESE
PROJECTS CAN TAKE UP TO SIX
MONTHS. OUR MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN OTHER STATES
AND HAVE SEEN WHICH PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS HAVE DEPLOYED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING QUICKLY
AND EFFECTIVELY BY FOCUSING ON
CONNECTING UNSERVED HOUSE HOLDS
AND BUSINESSES AND IN A MANNER
THAT REQUIRES MATCHING PRIVATE
SECTOR FUNDS TO EXPAND THE REACH
OF PUBLIC INVESTMENT AND
INCREASING FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR
ADOPTION EFFORTS. INCLUDING
SECURING DEVICES DIGITAL
NAVIGATORS TO IMPROVE DIGITAL
LITERACY AND ASSISTING
INDIVIDUALS IN SUBSCRIBING TO
AFFORDABLE INTERNET SERVICE
OPTIONS. CCT AND OUR MEMBERS
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE CPUC IN
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS KEVIN GARNETT AND
REPRESENTATIVE INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDER AND, UH IN THE AREA IN
CALIFORNIA. UM I'D LIKE TO TAKE
A MOMENT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE.
ESPECIALLY, UM. SENDING MY
PATTERSON'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE
NEED FOR TECHNOLOGY NEUTRALITY,
UH, AS WELL AS YOURS. TRIP
TRIPPING. UM THAT IS VERY
CRITICAL IN ORDER TO GET, UH
BROADBAND TO THE BROADEST SCOPE
OF PEOPLE. BECAUSE OF THE COST.
UM. WE DO BOTH FIBER AND
BROADBAND AND THE PROGRAM.
FURTHER FIXED WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY IS JUST EXPLODED
THROUGH THE ROOF IN TERMS OF ITS
CAPABILITIES. YOU KNOW, 10 YEARS
AGO? YEAH FIBER WAS ALL YOU HAD
IF YOU WANT TO HEAD GIGABIT
SPEED, BUT TODAY, UH YOU CAN GET
GIGGLES PEED WITH FIXED WIRELESS
EASILY. IN FACT, WE'RE DEPLOYING
EQUIPMENT RIGHT NOW YOU CAN GET
UP TO 400 MEGABITS PER SECOND,
UM, SYMMETRIC THREE OR FOUR
MILES. SO THAT EASILY MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS. UM AND THEN
LASTLY, UM. MY POINT. MY
REACTION TO, UM UH, MR ALVES, UM
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
FEDERAL RULES. THAT IS, UM. I
BELIEVE OVER A STRETCH. HMM. IF
YOU LOOK AT THE RULES, THEY
DON'T IT'S NOT AN EDICT FOR FIRE
LINE IS A GUIDELINE OR
RECOMMENDATION. SO I THINK THE
COMMISSION COULD, UM RE RETHINK
THAT AND IF NECESSARY, UH,
LEGISLATURE COULD INDICATE THAT
THEY SHOULD RETHINK THAT. THAT'S
MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. UM AND THANK YOU
AGAIN TO ALL THE MEMBERS WHO
HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARING
TODAY, AND THE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC
COULD WATCH VIRTUALLY OR IN THIS
ROOM. I WANT TO THANK THE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CPUC,
PRESIDENT ALICE REYNOLDS AND
DIRECTOR ROB OSBORNE. AND I WANT
TO THANK OUR ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES TO ENGLAND AND TRACY
RYAN. I THINK WE ALL REALLY GOT
A LOT OUT OF IT. SOME OF IT WAS
UNDERSTANDING SOME OF THOSE
PROCESSED. SOME OF US HOPEFULLY
IS, UM YOU KNOW A WAY TO
EXERCISE OUR OVERSIGHT DUTIES
MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S
IMPERATIVE THAT WE GET IT RIGHT
AND WE GET THE FUNDING OUT THE
DOOR. UM I THINK THE MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE HAVE MADE THE
PERSPECTIVES CLEAR ON HOW TO
PROCEED. AND I EXPECT THE CPUC
WILL TAKE ALL OF THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION AS THEY MOVE
FORWARD. UM AND WITH THAT I'M
ABOUT TO ADJOURN. BUT IT IS MY
50TH BIRTHDAY. SO WHAT A WAY TO
KICK OFF MY 50TH BIRTHDAY AND
WITH THAT THE MEETING IS
ADJOURNED.