Research Experts Claim CPUC Broadband Competition Report to be Misleading
The CPUC’s claim that increased broadband competition could save Californians $1 billion is facing pushback.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19, 2026 – Researchers claim California regulators made misleading conclusions in a recent broadband study.
Analysts at both the New York Law School and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation said the California Public Advocates Office’s (CPAO) January report, claiming Californians could save $1 billion annually with increased broadband competition, was false and misleading.
On Jan. 14, California Public Utilities Commission’s Public Advocate’s Office released a comparative analysis of major internet service providers of four urban centers: Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland and San Mateo. The report claimed that on top of the $1 million Californians could save, households also pay $15-$40 more per month for broadband when only one gigabit provider is available, compared with areas that have true gigabit competition.
New York Law School’s Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute (ACLP) researchers Alex Karras and Michael Santorelli said the CPUC’s analysis did not hold up, explaining that CPAO used an outcome-driven model designed for supportive results where benchmark and monopoly prices were maximized to highlight a gap and inflate harm. Additionally, ACLP said the analysis shows correlation, but not causation, further saying that the research design was not rigorous enough to conclude that competition caused differing prices.
“The $1 billion figure rests on inflated assumptions, apples-to-oranges price comparisons, and a calculation that is disconnected from the report’s own statistical models,” Karras and Santorelli wrote in the ACLP report. “When applied consistently, those models imply a figure less than one-tenth as large.”
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a nonprofit research institution, echoed the ACLP’s approach, claiming that the conclusions from CPAO’s data did not hold up. Instead, ITIF Director of Broadband and Spectrum Policy Joe Kane said the report had a misleading focus on unrealistic speeds that exceed what most consumers use. ITIF also explains that fixed wireless and satellite access were excluded from CPAO’s report, ignoring alternative providers of affordable broadband service.
“The report doesn’t tell us anything about competition or the affordability of broadband plans that meet real consumer needs, rather than meet an arbitrary, impractically high number,” Kane said.
Member discussion