3. Overview of Parties' Positions
As a basis for this decision, we have considered the comments from parties in response to the OIR, and in response to the Draft Proposal issued by ruling on April 26, 2011.
Various parties, including those representing regional Consortia (Consortia Parties), commented on what the Consortia's role with respect to CASF goals should be. Parties representing Consortia generally view the role of the Consortia grant program as assisting the Commission in evaluating and making recommendations on future CASF infrastructure applications to ensure that projects address regional priorities and achieve optimal cost effectiveness. Consortia parties proposed the following functions be covered by the regional Consortia grant program:
a. Conduct information briefings for stakeholders and providers about CASF and the opportunity to apply for funds;
b. Identify and convene interested parties to discuss options for infrastructure applications to CASF and to explore opportunities for coordinating use of assets to achieve the most cost-effective proposals;
c. Provide regional data and information to all interested applicants to submit applications to CASF;
d. Work with public agencies and private-sector industry clusters (and other prospective customers) to facilitate interaction with applicants to CASF;
e. Review and comment on both CASF infrastructure grant and loan applications submitted from the region as a formal part of the Commission staff assessment and analysis of the projects; and
f. Ensure policies are put in place by local governments throughout the region to promote broadband deployment and adoption.
Some parties suggest that the CETF or its partners should be part of the Commission's formal process of reviewing CASF grant or loan applications. The Small Local Exchange Carriers disagree, however, arguing that injecting these entities into the Commission's formal application review process would create confusion and possibly compromise the transparency of the Commission's review.
DRA believes that the Consortia program is duplicative of the role of the CETF, which was created by the Commission in 2005, after approving major telecommunications mergers. DRA agrees that if administered prudently, however, the Consortia program may facilitate further adoption of broadband services in California.
The CETF is a non profit organization dedicated to making grants to existing community based organizations in California who perform projects consistent with the CETF "digital-divide" goals. The Commission founded the CETF to achieve ubiquitous access to broadband by expanding adoption and use of broadband services. The CETF consists of $60 million of apportioned ratepayer monies for the purpose of further developing broadband deployment and adoption in California.
DRA recommends that Consortia program grants be awarded only for proposed broadband projects, but not to further subsidize existing Consortia organizations. If regional Consortia are consulted for project recommendations, DRA believes Consortia should either be preexisting, or should seek funds from the CETF for core funding. Otherwise, the State and the Commission will oversee two identical programs that function independently of one another. DRA asserts that it is more practical for the Commission to administer the Consortia program for project completion and to further broadband deployment and adoption, and advise parties to seek CETF funds for "core funding."
Many community-based organizations filing comments argue that only one publicly supported Consortium covering any given geographic region should be funded and that only existing regional Consortium should be eligible for funding or at least be given preference. Many of these parties also argue for adoption of Consortia criteria developed by the CETF.
TURN states that although the CETF and the existing Regional Consortia have achieved important results in helping bridge the digital divide in California, these organizations do not have all the answers for solving the lack of broadband in many communities. TURN believes that limiting eligible Consortia to only one existing regional Consortium based solely on CETF criteria would inherently limit expansive public participation and creation of new regional Consortium. CETF follows a venture philanthropy grant making model whereby the CETF Board decides what should be funded. Given that monies paid by ratepayers fund the CASF, TURN argues that the process must promote inclusiveness, accountability, and transparency. CETF has no such requirements.
TURN recommends that once a Consortium is approved for funding, the Consortia should have the duty to invite to participate any members of the public who desires to do so. TURN recognizes that the details of what exactly such participation would have to be developed, but as a general rule, TURN believes that the Consortia should allow all to be heard, to have a voice in the work of the Consortia and that the Consortia's processes, meetings, etc, should be noticed and public.
TURN also proposes that non-Commission-regulated entities that apply for CASF funds be required to submit to Commission jurisdiction as a condition to receiving such funding. TURN argues that the Commission can require non-regulated entities to comply with conditions in order to receive CASF funding including consumer protections, quality standards any price caps, etc.
SB 1040 appropriates a total of $10 million of funds to the Consortia grant program. Various Consortia Parties recommend that the Commission appropriate to each Regional Consortium $150,000 per year and a total baseline funding of $450,000 for three years.5 Consortia Parties further request an additional $2,000 per person (per diem) for up to five delegates annually to participate in the Regional Consortia Learning Community Summit. Various parties state that such a funding level was the original basis for projecting a need of $10 million in the Consortia program.
DRA, in contrast to other parties, argues that suggestions to award $2,000 per diem costs and $150,000 minimum level "core funding" do not comport with the intent for broadband deployment and adoption. DRA does not believe that the CASF program funds were intended to support and fund all activities of regional Consortia. DRA contends that proposals to allocate monies for per diem costs and core funding would exhaust a significant portion of the Consortia grant fund before a single application is reviewed.
5 See Comments of Redwood Coast Connect, Steven M. Karp, at 5; Comments of Teri Murrison, at 7; Comments of Valley Vision, at 6; Comments of Arlene Krebs, CSU Monterey Bay at 2; Comments of Amador-Tuolomne Community Action Agency at 7; Comments of Redwood Coast Connect, Dero Forslund, at 6; Comments of Contra Costa Council, at 5; Comments of the California Center for Rural Policy, at 5; Comments of California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, at 10; Comments of Sierra Economic Development Corporation, at 3.
