The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

Last week, a California Assemblymember who had sponsored legislation for a broadband affordability law abruptly withdrew the legislation. 

But what really killed the broadband affordability bill in California? Was it opposition to the proposed legislation from within the state or pressure from the Trump administration?

The Bill Was Advancing Until…

Modeled on New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the California Affordable Home Internet Act was first introduced in January. It aimed to require Internet service providers that operate in the Golden State to offer a $15 per month broadband service plan for income-eligible households.

Image

The proposed legislation was introduced as AB 353 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner and was initially supported by the California Alliance for Digital Equity (CADE).

Over the intervening months, CADE and proponents of the bill offered resources and recommendations on how the bill could be made more effective than the ABA, hoping to avoid the pitfalls that advocates were seeing with the rollout and implementation of New York’s law.

On June 4, the California bill advanced through the state Assembly and moved on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

California lawmakers’ efforts to pass a new law mandating affordable broadband access is at risk of being destroyed by industry lobbying. California insiders say the changes are so dramatic they may wind up making broadband affordability in the state worse – undermining years of digital equity activism and discarding a rare opportunity to bridge the digital divide.

The California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner last January, would require that broadband providers in the state provide broadband at no more than $15 per month for low-income households participating in a qualified public assistance program.

The original legislation mandated that state residents should be able to receive $15 for all ISPs for broadband at speeds of 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 20 Mbps upstream. The proposal mirrored similar efforts by New York State which opened the door to other state efforts after the Supreme Court recently refused to hear a telecom industry challenge.

Image

“I want to get something fair and reasonable that helps those who need it most,” Boerner said in a press release. “AB 353 will fill the gap and ensure our children can turn in their homework, families can get access to telehealth, and apply for jobs online.”

On June 4 a vote moved the legislation through the state Assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

Since it first broke ground in 2014, Longmont, Colorado’s city-owned NextLight fiber network has won numerous awards and inspired countless communities nationwide. But the network, which recently expanded access to more than 28,000 area residents, is also trailblazing in another area: ensuring that fiber is affordable to low income, marginalized populations.

NextLight unveiled its locally-funded Internet Assistance Program (IAP) last year. The program provides low-income residents with a $25 discount off of NextLight’s already affordable fiber pricing. As a result, locals can receive symmetrical 100 megabit per second (Mbps) service for as little as $14.95 a month, and symmetrical 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) fiber for $45.

To apply, households must qualify for any of a number of existing federal programs, including the FCC’s Lifeline, Head Start, Medicaid-MSP or SLMP, Veterans or survivor’s pension, Section 8, WIC, food stamps, Federal Pell Grants, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), SVVSD Education Benefit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR).

IAP was created to offset the collapse of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided a $30 per month discount off of the broadband bills of low-income Americans. The program was summarily discontinued after Republicans in Congress refused to fund a program extension.

According to Longmont officials, not only is their IAP program available to a much broader qualification base, with more than 1000 subscribers now enrolled, the program is currently helping 14 percent more city subscribers than the FCC’s ACP did at its peak.

Legislation that would require ISPs operating in Massachusetts to offer qualifying low-income households high-speed Internet service for $15 per month is set to have its first legislative hearing.

The hearing is slated to run from 11 am to 1 pm ET today before the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy. Committee members will hear testimony on multiple bills, including two companion pieces of legislation known as An Act Preserving Broadband Service for Low-income Consumers – S.2318 (filed by State Sen. Pavel Payano) and H.3527 (filed by State Rep. Rita Mendes).

The proceedings can be viewed here.

Inspired by New York Law

The hearing in Massachusetts comes as similar legislation is being considered by state lawmakers in Vermont and California – all three of which are modeled on New York’s Affordable Broadband Act which, after numerous legal challenges, went into effect in the Empire State in January of this year after the US Supreme Court declined to intervene and overturn a U.S. Appellate Court ruling that upheld the law.

Like the New York law, the bill being proposed in Massachusetts requires ISPs operating in Massachusetts to offer qualifying low-income households high-speed Internet service for $15 per month.

However, the Massachusetts bill set the minimum speed at 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) download to mirror the increased FCC definition for minimum broadband speeds that had been raised from the previous benchmark of 25/3 Mbps, which was the federal standard when the New York law was written.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

With New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) now in effect, lawmakers in other states are filing similar legislation that requires large Internet Service Providers to offer low-cost plans for financially-strapped households in their respective states.

In Massachusetts, State Sen. Pavel Payano filed a bill earlier this month similar to New York’s law that seeks to establish a $15/month plan for low-income households in the Bay State.

Image

Then, earlier this week, California Assemblymember Tasha Boerner introduced Assembly Bill 353 that would mandate ISPs “make affordable home Internet plans available to California residents,” Boerner’s office said in a press release.

“Right now, families are struggling to afford essential services, like the Internet,” Boerner said in a press statement.

Speaking to why passing an affordable broadband law was important, Boerner put it in plain terms, noting that “households in our state don’t have support to pay for a basic home Internet service plan. We are talking about kids not being able to do homework at home, parents having to go to libraries to apply for jobs, and people not having access to do basic things, like telehealth.”

As states consider filing or supporting legislation similar to New York’s Affordable Broadband Act that requires large broadband providers to offer a low-cost plan for low-income households, ILSR’s Community Broadband Networks Initiative is hosting a special live forum focused on what New York lawmakers did with the law and the ripple effects it has created.

“Consider Affordable Broadband State-By-State” will be held live on Monday February 3rd from 3:30 to 4 pm ET on ILSR’s YouTube channel, or below.

Image

The agenda will focus on what New York’s affordable broadband law includes and what other states may want to consider in crafting similar legislation.

The livestream will be free to any interested participants. It can be viewed here.

Bring your questions as the live forum will hold space for Q&A.

Ahead of the live stream, you can read our analysis and our fact sheets on the law here and here.
 

Now that the lengthy legal beef has been settled and New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) is set to take effect this month, it marks a potentially pivotal moment in a national effort to address one of the biggest barriers to broadband adoption: 

Affordability.

The first-in-the-nation law requiring large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in New York to offer a $15/month plan for qualifying low-income households stands to benefit the approximately 1.7 million New Yorkers who had been enrolled in the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Congress allowed to expire last spring.

With a new administration entering the White House – supported by GOP Congressional leaders who blocked previous ACP renewal efforts – the newly enacted ABA “paints a path that other states will look at,” as New Street Research analyst Blair Levin recently noted.

Image

“In a world where the federal government is subsidizing low-income households for $30 a month, states did not need to take action to address low-income broadband affordability,” Levin added. But now, without the ACP benefit, “states may try to assist low-income households to keep them connected.”