“The people who rely on the Affordable Connectivity Program to connect with healthcare providers, attend work or school, or access their benefits are no less deserving, anywhere across America, than anyone else,” said Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico), in his opening remarks at a Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband hearing.
Titled “The Future of Broadband Affordability,” the hearing gathered testimony from various experts on the critical need for — and the shortcomings of — the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). This widely popular initiative helps subsidize monthly Internet service for low-income households but has received no new funding and is set to wind down this month. Lawmakers have proposed short-term funding solutions, but none have been voted on yet.
Administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the ACP provides households with a discount of up to $30 per month toward Internet service and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying tribal lands.
Experts like Kathryn de Wit, project director for the Broadband Access Initiative at The Pew Charitable Trusts, Jennifer Case Nevarez, a member of the Broadband and Digital Equity Support Team for New Mexico, and Blair Levin, policy adviser at New Street Research, emphasized the economic impacts of less affordable broadband for the 23 million households relying on the ACP.
Citing research from the Benenson Strategy Group and Comcast, de Wit noted that 95 percent of ACP recipients reported they would struggle with household costs like groceries, healthcare, and housing if the program lapses.
However, some lawmakers, such as Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota), argued that inefficiencies and other issues have allowed the ACP to be used by families who do not need the subsidy.
“The ACP does a poor job at directing support to those who truly need it, mainly those who would not get service without a subsidy,” Thune said, noting that the eligibility requirements are too broad, making over 40 percent of U.S. households eligible.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), where more than 1.7 million households are enrolled in the ACP, labeled it a “massive welfare program.”
“Turns out, the vast majority of these people already had high-speed Internet,” Cruz said, citing an FCC survey showing only 22 percent of households receiving the ACP were previously unsubscribed to broadband, suggesting the other 78 percent could secure a monthly broadband subscription without financial hardship.
Paul Winfree, president and CEO of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, testified that ACP subsidies have led to increased costs for consumers, as Internet service providers raise rates to capture the subsidy.
“Deregulation and competition have reduced broadband prices,” Winfree argued, advocating for a more free-market approach. “Policies that subsidize demand, such as the Affordable Connectivity Program, tend to increase prices.”
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) countered this argument, stating that broadband is not like groceries or other consumer goods where increased supply brings down prices.
“It is so damn expensive to lay broadband,” Tester remarked. “It’s a different marketplace that holds the consumer at a disadvantage.”
Much of the testimony highlighted the crucial connection between broadband access and healthcare, particularly telehealth.
“The end of ACP is likely to cause increased healthcare costs and worse health outcomes. Why would we want to do that?” Levin said. “Broadband is a general service technology. It enables innovations and efficiencies in multiple areas.”