Last week, California Assembly Bill 353 (AB 353) — which promises affordable internet for those who qualify for it — advanced when it passed the state’s Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee by a vote of 7 to 2. The bill faced hefty opposition from the telecommunications, cable, and broadband industry.
AB 353 would require internet service providers operating in California to offer affordable home internet to eligible residents of the state, according to a press statement made by California Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who introduced the bill to the California Assembly earlier this year.
What the legislation deems “affordable home internet service” would cost California residents no more than $15 per month and provide minimum speeds of 100/20 Mbps. The text of the bill reads, in part, “… would require every California internet service provider to offer for purchase to eligible households, as defined, within their California service territory affordable home internet service that meets minimum speed requirements ….”
As chairperson of California’s Committee on Communications and Conveyance, Boerner told Telecompetitor last month that she closely watched the progress of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which ran out of funds and ended on June 1, 2024. Boerner introduced AB 353 in direct response to the finish of ACP.
“Broadband affordability is not an urban versus rural issue, nor does it have to be a partisan issue. We all should agree that broadband is an essential service that must be affordable for all,” Boerner said in this week’s statement. Three million California residents had relied on ACP subsidies for their home internet service and, if AB 353 eventually passes, 6 million people or more could benefit, depending on where the income level for eligibility is established, she said.
Last year a similar bill, which also requires providers to offer a $15 internet plan, became law in New York. Boerner told Telecompetitor the fact that the Supreme Court would not hear a challenge to the New York State law “was our signal that states are allowed to create their own programs.”
