The California Public Utilities Commission has mapped out rural areas of the state where faster internet speeds are most needed, setting priority regions for $1.84 billion in federal funding California is getting through the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration on Oct. 4 approved the CPUC's plan for ranking applications for funding under the federal Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, or BEAD.
Much of the Central Valley – but especially Kern, Tulare, Fresno and Merced counties – show dense pockets of underserved or unserved areas based on Federal Communications Commission data.
The CPUC, responsible for managing the program and distributing funds across the state, is now submitting the results of its Challenge Process Plan for selecting grant awardees.
Cal.net, a small wireless provider focused on getting service to the Sierra Foothills and Central Valley, is concerned agricultural areas may not receive equitable coverage with BEAD.
“There's people in the Valley who believe that the CPUC is, you know, prejudiced against fixed wireless,” said Linda Thomas, Cal.net vice president of community outreach and government relations. “Because of that, there are large swaths of the west side of the Valley between Bakersfield and Redding that aren't going to be covered.”
Fiber priority is written into BEAD’s objectives. In the NTIA Notice of Funding Opportunity, fiber is explicitly stated as the first choice service for reliability and to make end-to-end fiber projects feasible wherever possible.
The major caveat is the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold (EHCPL), which the NTIA requires eligible entities to set in case a given project using fiber would exceed the BEAD budget. Several parties provided input on how the CPUC could establish its threshold, which it decided will not be established until subgrantee applications are already submitted.
In a statement to Agri-Pulse, Terrie Prosper, CPUC director of strategic communications for CPUC's External affairs Division, said the EHCPL determines "where end-to-end fiber is no longer feasible and/or cost-effective within the overall $1.86 [billion] BEAD allocation."
Prosper added that fiber deployment applications under this threshold are prioritized and that the order of priority goes fiber, "reliable projects" (licensed fixed wireless) then "non-reliable technologies" including satellite and unlicensed fixed wireless, respectively.
CPUC revised its Initial proposal to clarify that if fiber is not the most affordable option, “the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold will determine which locations would be more effectively served by alternative technologies.” The agency is currently reviewing public challenges to how it mapped out areas of service, so final decisions have yet to be determined.
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) has been a proponent of fiber since their advocates worked on SB 156, the state’s $6 billion investment in broadband infrastructure. The bill package had a series of ambitious goals, including the creation of a $3 billion state-owned middle mile network, $2 billion last-mile local networks and $750 million to help secure broadband funding for local entities.
RCRC advocate Tracy Rhine likens the middle mile to a spine, running down the center of the state to make end connections with last mile infrastructure. The California Department of Technology estimates that 3,000 miles of middle-mile infrastructure will be under construction by the end of the calendar year.
This plan faced some setbacks after California’s major budget deficit. Through a series of funding deferrals and cuts, Newsom rolled back approximately $2 billion of what was originally promised.
Rhine said that her top priority is actually seeing this funding make it into the counties. She’d like to see middle-mile construction connect to last mile networks, and then focus on the BEAD application. Her concern is that mapping won’t be accurate.
“That is just an omnipresent issue throughout – I mean, since I've been working on broadband for the last eight years,” she said.
While she has not heard from any RCRC members whether agricultural uses are of primary importance, Rhine does believe that fiber is the best solution for optimal capacity and ensuring these networks are “futureproof.”
“You have all these other things that are taking up capacity. And so with fiber, you have built in extra capacity, and as opposed to, if you just have wireless towers.”
But Thomas thinks fiber is far too costly for most farmers. She’d like to see support for ag-specific projects, such as the local wireless provider’s new effort to get broadband on farms to establish reliable service for precision agriculture practices.
After running two trials that provided Terranova Ranch with 500 acres of coverage, Thomas said she was hopeful to see some state support for non-fiber solutions to the rural broadband issue given Terranova Ranch General Manager Don Cameron is president of the State Food and Agriculture Board.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
On-farm innovations such as timed irrigation and data collection isn’t the only use. Following a $1.5 million fiber quote from AT&T, Cameron wrote a letter to congress that emphasized how internet allows security cameras to monitor his property and gives his mechanics the ability to order parts for tractors as soon as an issue arises.
He added that service is beneficial for the overall quality of life in agricultural communities. Internet can supplement in-person resources such as telehealth services or online schoolwork.
“It always makes me fume when I see advertisements in large California cities advertising ‘one gigabyte’ speeds to customers for ridiculously low pricing,” Cameron wrote. “Why them and not us? We have been left out.”
Thomas testified in 2022 and 2023 in favor of bills that would open windows so the state could consider California Advanced Services funding for non-fiber broadband services: AB 1065, authored by Asm.Jim Patterson and sponsored by Cal.net, and AB 2749, authored by Asm. Sharon Quirk-Silva. She is holding out for possible funding through the next farm bill.
Both were vetoed at Gov. Newsom’s desk, where he reasoned they could “jeopardize the CPUC's ability to meet federal funding encumbrance deadlines” and “significantly disrupt the review of project grant applications”. Thomas was surprised, especially since a deputy cabinet secretary for Newsom had come to the field day and directed her to another deputy secretary to talk more about wireless broadband.
“We ended up having two meetings with him to talk about the project and to talk about ag tech and [AB] 1065,” Thomas said.
Neither deputy cabinet secretary responded to Agri-Pulse’s request for comment regarding BEAD.
On Tuesday, the California Broadband Council met to discuss program updates managed by both the CDT and CPUC.
Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Los Angeles, asked Bob Osborn, CPUC Communications Division director, how the CPUC will prioritize low income and minority communities and ensure they receive BEAD allocations.
Osborn reiterated that since the grant program is applicant driven, the CPUC is making a concerted effort to encourage a diversity of internet service providers to apply for funding to achieve service in areas that have been overlooked, as some He added that BEAD has “a significant focus on digital equity as well.”
“Because we were finding that the large companies that have traditionally participated in the grant programs were not applying for areas that did not generate a certain return on investment,” he said.
Scott Adams, deputy director of broadband and digital literacy at the CDT, said the agencies are looking ahead into low-cost offers for populations associated with BEAD awards.
