Two parties filed a response to for rehearing. Charter’s application California Emerging Technology Fund filed a response in support of Resolution T-17515, while Cox Communications California filed a response supporting LLC (“Cox”) for rehearing. Charter’s application We have carefully considered all of the arguments presented by the rehearing applicant, and find that Resolution T-17515 should be modified to clarify that (1) the Legislature did not intend for section 281(e)(3), including the and “unserved” requirements set forth therein, to apply to the award of “underserved” Commission’s BPHA grants or loans to PSCs, which are governed by section 281(h); (2) section 281(h)(3) sets forth the for the BPHA funds to be used to connect a Legislature’s intent broadband network to a PSC; (3) section 281(h)(3) specifies that the only grounds for a challenge of a BPHA award to a PSC is if the PSC has denied a right of access to any broadband provider that is willing to connect a broadband network to the facility for which the grant or loan is sought; (4) there is no language in section 281(h) prohibiting the Commission from awarding BPHA funding to a PSC because the property is already served and wired by a private broadband provider; (5) in D.14-12-039, the Commission intended to allow PSCs with both and properties to apply for BPHA “wired” “unwired” funding; and to delete Appendix A to the Resolution because its modification to the (6) expedited review criteria in D.14-12-039, Appendix B, was unnecessary since D.14-12-039 already authorized Commission staff to approve BPHA applications for wired or unwired properties through expedited review. Rehearing of Resolution T-17515, as modified, is denied because no legal error has been demonstrated. In addition, we deny related Motion for Stay of Charter’s Resolution T-17515 because the issues presented therein are moot with the disposition of application for rehearing. Charter’s
Two parties filed a response to Charter’s application for rehearing. California Emerging Technology Fund filed a response in support of Resolution T-17515, while Cox Communications California LLC (“Cox”) filed a response supporting Charter’s application for rehearing. We have carefully considered all of the arguments presented by the rehearing applicant, and find that Resolution T-17515 should be modified to clarify that (1) the Legislature did not intend for section 281(e)(3), including the “unserved” and “underserved” requirements set forth therein, to apply to the Commission’s award of BPHA grants or loans to PSCs, which are governed by section 281(h); (2) section 281(h)(3) sets forth the Legislature’s intent for the BPHA funds to be used to connect a broadband network to a PSC; (3) section 281(h)(3) specifies that the only grounds for a challenge of a BPHA award to a PSC is if the PSC has denied a right of access to any broadband provider that is willing to connect a broadband network to the facility for which the grant or loan is sought; (4) there is no language in section 281(h) prohibiting the Commission from awarding BPHA funding to a PSC because the property is already served and wired by a private broadband provider; (5) in D.14-12-039, the Commission intended to allow PSCs with both “wired” and “unwired” properties to apply for BPHA funding; and (6) to delete Appendix A to the Resolution because its modification to the expedited review criteria in D.14-12-039, Appendix B, was unnecessary since D.14-12-039 already authorized Commission staff to approve BPHA applications for wired or unwired properties through expedited review. Rehearing of Resolution T-17515, as modified, is denied because no legal error has been demonstrated. In addition, we deny Charter’s related Motion for Stay of Resolution T-17515 because the issues presented therein are moot with the disposition of Charter’s application for rehearing.