Millions of Americans remain offline, and the onus of reversing that situation is falling to the states in the absence of federal action, according to a new report on affordability by The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.
For a long time, consumers relied upon the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). Its ending has had a significant impact.
“Now that the ACP has expired, consumers are left with few options once again,” the report said. “For a very few, the federal Lifeline program may partially reduce their home internet bill. Others may sacrifice performance to save money by opting for a low-cost plan offered by a provider. Some households may sacrifice other essentials, like food, to keep internet access — while others may allow their subscription to lapse in order to pay other bills.”
Help is on the way. The affordability report gives some examples of low-cost broadband services being offered at the state level. Examples are low-cost plans for $15 or less in New York; state lifeline reform; one-time subsidies (such as in Maryland and South Carolina); low-income housing incentives; consumer protections and transparency measures; and enhanced competition and consumer choice.
The report pointed out that the New York plan may be unique because three providers cover almost the entire state and they offered plans that meet the Affordable Broadband Act even before it became law.
There is no cookie cutter solution to broadband affordability, the report said. The states must deal with several factors, including available state resources; the local market landscape; the time horizon of affordability needs; the positions of political, industry, and consumer groups; implementation strategies for enrolling households; and managing program outreach.
The broadband affordability report offers six strategies or conditions that can help states support their residents. It ends with a chart that identifies the “facilitating conditions” and challenges states to consider six approaches. The six are low-cost plans, state lifeline reform, one-time subsidies, low-income housing incentives, consumer protections, and increased competition.
State-level efforts are not immune to what is happening in Washington, however. In July, California Assembly member Tasha Boerner cited uncertainty over changes in the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program as the reason she pulled her proposed bill that would have mandated that providers offer an inexpensive internet option to people at certain income levels.
At the end of June, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denied a request by four Lifeline providers to extend COVID-era waiver rules one additional day. If the request had been granted the providers would have gotten an extra month of federal subsidies despite continued non-use of the service.
