California Proposed A Law Making Broadband Affordable For Poor People. Telecom Lobbyists Have Already Destroyed It.

Last January, Democratic California Assemblymember Tasha Boerner introduced the California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), which mandated that large ISPs in the state needed to provide broadband service at speeds of 100 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up for $15 a month to California residents who qualify for existing low-income assistance programs.

“Right now, families are struggling to afford essential services, like the internet,” Boerner said when the law was unveiled. “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.”

But six months later and the bill is already on the cusp of being destroyed by telecom industry lobbyists and Boerner herself.

On June 4, a vote moved the legislation through the state assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin. But numerous sources in and out of government tell me that Boerner has introduced a long list of telecom-industry-friendly amendments behind closed doors that destroy the whole point of the proposed law. And she’s refusing to hear any complaints about the covert moves.

Among the changes is a halving of the planned speeds from 100 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, to 50 Mbps down, 10 Mbps up (a big favor to cable broadband providers that have long struggled to modernize their upstream speeds). The new definition doesn’t even meet the federal government’s already flimsy definition of “broadband.”

Also dead are absolutely any sort of enforcement or reporting requirements, basically allowing ISPs to ignore the law, even if it was passed.

The bill also actively prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission — the state’s most capable watchdog on broadband — from overseeing broadband affordability issues, and refuses to exempt smaller independent providers and municipal alternatives, which could actively undermine creative efforts to improve broadband competition.

In many ways the new bill is worse than doing nothing. Shayna Englin of the California Community Foundation recently laid out the changes on a podcast for the Institute For Local Self Reliance, noting that Boerner has been completely unwilling to discuss any of the changes with community leaders:

The original bill had significant potential to reshape affordable broadband in the state. A recent study by the CPUC’s Public Advocates Office found that offering 100/20 Mbps service for $15 a month would only cost the state’s four largest ISPs less than 1 cent on the dollar in revenue, while providing nearly $100 million per year in savings to low-income state residents.

The low-income requirement was genuinely not a large ask for major California providers like Xfinity, Cox, Verizon, and AT&T. Reporters have found that big ISPs routinely charge low income and minority customers higher prices for lower-quality service. These same providers have worked tirelessly to erode competition and oversight, resulting in artificially high broadband prices in the first place.

These telecom giants are terrified of federal or state governments doing absolutely anything to seriously address a broadband market failure monopolization problem they themselves created. They’re particularly terrified of government engaging in any sort of rate regulation, even if it’s only to help the poorest among us.

Boerner saw significant campaign contributions from telecom providers last election cycle, and may have been chosen to usher this bill forth specifically with an eye on ensuring it doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to do. And keep in mind this is purportedly progressive California; the lion’s share of U.S. states care significantly less about telecom monopolization — or the public interest.

California’s law was attempting to copy a recently passed New York State law passed during the height of pandemic lockdowns. The telecom industry sued to overturn that law but failed to have their challenge heard by the Supreme Court (which was too busy creating unaccountable kings, apparently). That opened the door to other states to follow suit with their own, similarly legislation.

Thanks to lobbying, California appears to have shot their own effort at equitable broadband access in the foot. With the Trump administration giving up on broadband affordability and consumer protection, states are filling the void. Massachusetts, Vermont and Minnesota are pursuing similar legislation. Hopefully their state legislatures can demonstrate something vaguely resembling ethical integrity.