Thread by @EFF

Decisions are being made TODAY in CA on how affordability under the new state broadband infrastructure law will work. This will impact both CA and the US. The state is about to invest billions in infrastructure to serve everyone, but what price should people pay? A thread. (1/14)

What California's broadband regulator, @californiapuc, is contemplating: simply requiring anyone who wants taxpayer money to offer an affordable $40 50/50 mbps option. This ensures taxpayers funding these networks get a direct benefit. (2/14)
eff.org/deeplinks/2022…

This has national ramifications because every state will have to define what is a "low cost option" with federal infrastructure dollars. CA is early because of its state law. What happens here will influence other state rules on affordability. (3/14)
congress.gov/117/plaws/publ…

Companies like AT&T and Big Cable who charge too much money are worried about policies being set to establish basic affordability for broadband. They have gone to Sacramento to scare legislators and say no ISPs will apply for state money with affordability rules. (4/14)

And in response, Assembly Members @QuirkSilva65th, @AsmMeganDahle, @JimWoodAD2, and @AsmAguiarCurry have written to the @californiapuc expressing concerns with requiring affordability in subsidized networks. (5/14)
eff.org/document/ca-as…

EFF wrote quickly in response to their concerns to explain how fully subsidized networks, particularly fiber networks, have very low costs to operate. More importantly, the absence of a low cost offering will leave people with very high prices. (6/14)
eff.org/document/eff-s…

It is also worth noting that Big ISPs are running an old playbook. When Congress required #netneutrality in the 2009 federal investment into broadband infrastructure, they told Congress no one will apply for money. Guess what happened? (7/14)
thehill.com/business-a-lob…

Big ISPs did walk away because of #netneutrality, but 2000+ local private and public entities applied for the money to build solutions. (8/14)
lexology.com/library/detail…

There was in fact, not enough money in the 2009 law to fund all the local demand for broadband. Local public and private entities will fill the void created by AT&T and Big Cable's departure. That is a good thing because locals will do it better. (9/14)
muniwireless.com/2009/08/27/nti…

Unlike the 2009 fed law, CA has set aside enough money to do fiber for everyone. There is no shortage of funding from the state's broadband infrastructure law, and a lot of local action is happening due to the law. Some examples being... (10/13)

eff.org/deeplinks/2021…

Rural county governments have formed a joint authority called the Golden State Connect Authority with the specific mission of delivering open access fiber to the home to all rural Californians.
They don't oppose the affordability requirement. (11/14)
rcrcnet.org/rcrc-votes-for…

Los Angeles County is actively contemplating building a fiber to the home connection to residents given that more than half of the area lacks 21st century ready access and is stuck with overpriced slow cable monopolies. (12/14)
muninetworks.org/content/la-cou…

Chico is contemplating open access fiber network for its residents. All of these local actions and more are happening right now because @GavinNewsom and the CA legislature unanimously passed SB 156 to enable the development of local choice. (13/14).
muninetworks.org/content/chico-…

EFF supports California moving forward on requiring affordability in taxpayer funded networks. Broadband is akin to water and electricity and needs to be as affordable as possible for all. The legislators should ignore the scare tactics and tell AT&T and Big Cable adiós. (14/14)