California’s Underserved Communities Face Potential Discrimination.

Critical regulatory issues must be addressed before the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act can serve the needs of underserved communities.

LOS ANGELES - The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) continues to make progress in the implementation of the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA). This is the good news. The bad news is these CPUC regulations present a real danger for discriminatory practices will go undetected and unchecked. There are several areas of concern.

First, the CPUC refused to review applications for potential redlining and other discriminatory practices. They maintain that provisions in AB 2987 (Nunez and Levine), the statewide video franchise legislation, prevents the CPUC from reviewing applications. While the California Community Technology Policy Group (CCTPG) and Latino Issues Forum (LIF) disagree with this interpretation of the law, the CPUC can and should review the state video franchise holders for potential discrimination within the first six months. The letter and spirit of the law does allow for this of oversight

Second, the CPUC determined that “DIVCA’s build out requirements apply to a state video franchise holder’s video service area as a whole, not a per-contiguous-area basis.” A video service area is often beyond the boundaries of one city. The CPUC’s decision, however, only allows local entities to bring charges of discrimination. This presents a significant barrier to fighting discriminatory practices since local entities will be required to coordinate their investigations into build-out that crosses their various jurisdictions. CCTPG and LIF believe that the Department of Ratepayers Advocates (DRA) should be empowered to file these complaints in the interest of protecting consumers.

Third, the CPUC rightly decided to gather information relative to the types of technology used for non-wireline services (e.g. satellite or wireless technologies). This information will permit consumers in underserved communities to determine whether inferior technology is being used in their neighborhoods. This is still only a half-step, though. The CPUC should mandate reporting of the type of wireline used as well. DIVCA imposes very specific requirements on the holder depending on whether they are using fiber optic facilities to the home or to the neighborhood.

Finally, the CPUC determined to limit, if not silence altogether, comments from their own pre-qualified and credentialed individuals, or “intervenors,” in their DIVCA regulatory proceedings by disallowing compensation. Providing commentary on regulatory issues is a labor-intensive, time-consuming, arduous undertaking, for which the CPUC compensates in recognition of all the work involved. Well-heeled corporations can afford to absorb the costs when their interests are at stake. Consumer rights advocates and watchdog groups working with severely limited resources are not in a position to undertake the work for free. The CPUC should reverse its decision to not pay intervenors in order to establish a level playing field and to ensure that the voices of the underserved are heard.

For more information please contact: Richard Chabran, CCTPG, at (909) 234-1768, and a chabran@cctpg.org, or Enrique Gallardo, LIF, at (415) 547-7550, and at eriqueg@lif.com

The California Community Technology Policy Group (CCTPG) is a diverse network of organizations working to promote social justice through access to and use of technology tools in underserved communities to improve quality of life. The Latino Issues Forum (LIF) is a non-profit public policy and advocacy institute dedicated to advancing new and innovative public policy solutions for a better, more equitable and prosperous society.