housing should be eligible for the Public Housing Account. CCTA proposed that nonfacilities based applicants be required to attest that they have the requisite right from the underlying facilitiesbased provider to provide broadband service to the project. However, these recommendations were not supported by statue enacted by AB 1665. Therefore, no changes are made to this section. Expedited Review CCTA recommended that Public Housing infrastructure projects for wireline technology be prioritized over wireless projects. CCBC recommended that the Commission establish a minimum of 10 megabits per second (Mbps) down and 1 Mbps up for such projects. We disagree with both recommendations because CASF is a technology neutral program, as stated in the statute. Further, Public Housing infrastructure projects in themselves are not intended to replicate the robust level of connectivity of a commercial provider. Loan Account In this decision, we address the change in treatment of the three existing loans as a result of the program changes implemented by AB 1665 to the Broadband Infrastructure Revolving Loan Account. Treatment of Existing Loans In the draft Staff Proposal, staff would perform due diligence in establishing a loan process for grantees with the chosen financing authority to facilitate the servicing of the CASF loan fund disbursement and repayment processes. The GCBC agrees with staff's recommendation of selecting the financial services that would be provided by The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (iBank) to facilitate loan processing. CETF and Bright Fiber also agree that existing loans be honored. When necessary, the
housing should be eligible for the Public Housing Account. CCTA proposed that nonfacilities based applicants be required to attest that they have the requisite right from the underlying facilitiesbased provider to provide broadband service to the project. However, these recommendations were not supported by statue enacted by AB 1665. Therefore, no changes are made to this section. Expedited Review CCTA recommended that Public Housing infrastructure projects for wireline technology be prioritized over wireless projects. CCBC recommended that the Commission establish a minimum of 10 megabits per second (Mbps) down and 1 Mbps up for such projects. We disagree with both recommendations because CASF is a technology neutral program, as stated in the statute. Further, Public Housing infrastructure projects in themselves are not intended to replicate the robust level of connectivity of a commercial provider. Loan Account In this decision, we address the change in treatment of the three existing loans as a result of the program changes implemented by AB 1665 to the Broadband Infrastructure Revolving Loan Account. Treatment of Existing Loans In the draft Staff Proposal, staff would perform due diligence in establishing a loan process for grantees with the chosen financing authority to facilitate the servicing of the CASF loan fund disbursement and repayment processes. The GCBC agrees with staff's recommendation of selecting the financial services that would be provided by The California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (iBank) to facilitate loan processing. CETF and Bright Fiber also agree that existing loans be honored. When necessary, the
216627462.docx