California is withholding federal broadband funding while it disputes the Trump administration’s interpretation of the terms attached to the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The state says those terms could prevent it from enforcing consumer protections, including affordability requirements, net neutrality rules, and privacy safeguards. If federal officials refuse to change their position, California could challenge the conditions in court.
California holds back BEAD funding amid dispute
In a letter, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Executive Director Rachel Reynolds acknowledged that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) might disagree with the CPUC’s position. She said California would not distribute BEAD funds to internet service providers (ISPs) until the state and federal agencies resolve their differences.
If the NTIA refuses to change its position, California could sue the Trump administration, arguing that the terms are unconstitutional.
The NTIA appears unlikely to back down. “As stated in the department’s response to the CPUC, the terms of the award constitute the entire agreement between the NTIA and the CPUC. No part of the letter outlining the CPUC’s concerns is incorporated into or becomes part of the award,” an NTIA spokesperson told Ars.
Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge supports the CPUC’s position. The group described the Trump administration’s request to preempt state laws as “brazen and worthless.”
Raza Panjwani, a senior policy advisor at Public Knowledge, said: “This administration’s absurd request to exempt the industry from across-the-board affordability requirements, net neutrality, privacy protections, and other commitments to connect and serve Americans” has no basis in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which established BEAD.
“Also, as the committee points out, the NTIA does not have the authority to change California law or require California government agencies not to enforce the law,” Panjwani said.
California’s interpretation of Section 50
The CPUC voted to approve the funding plan in September. However, in a letter to the Trump administration yesterday, Reynolds said the agency’s acceptance of the funds was “based on the CPUC’s best understanding of the implications of Section 50” of the BEAD Terms of Use.
Section 50 of the BEAD regulations states that each state:
“During the term, Grantee will not enforce any law, regulation, order, contractual requirement, or other enforceable obligation that directly or indirectly regulates the rates, terms, and conditions of broadband Internet service, or enforces net neutrality rules, open access, or other utility-style rules with respect to broadband Internet service within the state in which the Subgrantee serves (i.e., both BEAD and non-BEAD locations). You undertake not to coerce Subgrant or any of its affiliates in any way. Performance, Performance Extension Period, or Federal Interest Period.”
The BEAD rules define net neutrality requirements as rules that prohibit ISPs from “blocking content, throttling speeds, capping data, or implementing paid prioritization.” ISPs that receive BEAD funding could be exempt from such laws for up to 14 years.
Source: arstechnica.com
