[CalFiber] SB1130 2020 Post-Mortem

Dane Jasper dane.jasper at sonic.com
Thu Sep 3 08:13:35 PDT 2020

> One reason given was that SB1130 existed as an unfunded mandate, according to Rendon. Despite the fact that the CASF is already funded via fees assessed on our monthly ISP bills, Rendon wanted an additional funding mechanism attached to the bill. Are CASF taxes set to sunset in the next few years? This might've been what he's referencing. Would be nice to have a ready to go talking point to rebut this. It may already be out there, I'm just unaware of it.

The CASF is funded by a surcharge on telecommunications - this means
primarily voice telephone service. It's not an ISP surcharge, there
are no taxes or surcharges on internet access in California.

I don't quite see how it could be characterized as "unfunded", given
the CASF's funding mechanism. I'm not totally on top of the current
state of it, but I did review this page:

...which seems to lead to the legislation that created the funding
mechanisms. Maybe that $250M "cap" is headed toward sunset? I dunno -
but I do know we're charging a fee to every voice customer every month
and remitting that the CPUC, so there's certainly funds going
somewhere for something!   ;)

Dane Jasper
dane.jasper at sonic.com

More information about the CalFiber mailing list