日本語
한국어
Tiếng Việt
简体中文
Sacramento, CA – A significant legislative effort in California to mandate a $15 monthly low-cost broadband plan for income-eligible residents has been abandoned, following alleged threats from the Trump administration to withhold crucial federal funding. State Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, the bill’s author, called the situation a “complete farce,” citing a federal ultimatum that could cost California nearly $2 billion in broadband expansion funds.
Boerner’s proposed legislation, which sought to compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer affordable plans, was initially modeled after a similar law in New York. The Supreme Court had twice rebuffed challenges from the broadband industry against New York’s mandate, seemingly solidifying states’ authority to impose such requirements.
Federal Pressure and Bill Amendments
As chair of the Communications and Conveyance Committee, Assemblymember Boerner faced considerable pressure from ISPs to amend or withdraw her bill. In response, she modified the proposed plan’s required speeds, lowering download speeds from 100Mbps to 50Mbps and upload speeds from 20Mbps to 10Mbps.
However, the bill’s journey through the legislature was abruptly halted when, according to Boerner, Trump administration officials conveyed a stark warning: California risked losing its allocated $1.86 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds if it proceeded with the low-cost service mandate. This substantial amount represents California’s share of a $42.45 billion congressional fund designed to expand broadband access nationwide.
The administration has reportedly revised the BEAD program rules, delaying grants and introducing new stipulations. A key change, according to Boerner, is that states are now prohibited from dictating the rates ISPs can charge for low-cost plans. While the federal BEAD law requires grant recipients to offer a “low-cost broadband service option,” new guidance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) explicitly forbids states from “explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO [low-cost service option] rate a subgrantee must offer.”
Lawmaker Slams “Complete Farce”
Boerner highlighted that this federal stance appears to be a direct response to ISPs, who, after their legal defeats against New York’s affordability law, lobbied the Trump administration to intervene. Despite New York’s court victory seemingly affirming states’ regulatory power, the administration now appears to be leveraging its control over BEAD funding to coerce states into abandoning low-income broadband requirements.
“When we introduced the bill, there were looming changes to the BEAD program,” Boerner explained. “There were hints at what would happen, but we had a call two weeks ago with NTIA that confirmed that… explicit or implicit rate regulation would disqualify a state for access.”
She further elaborated on the NTIA’s position: even if California secured the funding, ISPs could sidestep the proposed low-cost broadband bill simply by applying for BEAD funding. “All they would have to do to get exempted from AB 353 [the $15 broadband bill] would be to apply to the BEAD program,” she stated. “Doesn’t matter if their application was valid, appropriate, granted, or they got public money at the end of the day and built the projects—the mere application for the BEAD program would exempt them from 353, if it didn’t jeopardize from $1.86 billion to begin with. And that was a tradeoff I was unwilling to make.”
Boerner condemned this as a “complete farce,” given that ISPs would receive public funds for infrastructure development without a firm commitment to specific low-income plan rates. Requests for comment from the NTIA regarding Boerner’s statements and the implications for New York’s law went unanswered.
The lawmaker believes the federal government’s action constitutes “a flat-out giveaway to large corporations and denying Californians and Americans access to what’s essentially a basic service that everybody needs, which is access to broadband.”
Advocates Urge California to Stand Firm
Despite the bill’s initial passage by the Assembly and subsequent negotiations, Boerner decided last week to halt its progress for the current year after the critical NTIA call. Advocacy groups, however, strongly contend that California should not yield to either major ISPs or the NTIA.
They argue that BEAD funding is intended for new broadband deployments, whereas California’s proposed law would primarily apply to existing networks. Furthermore, they emphasize New York’s successful four-year legal battle against ISPs, culminating in the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upholding its law, with the Supreme Court declining to hear further challenges.
“No matter which way you slice it, federal changes to the BEAD program do not override the Supreme Court’s affirmation of a state’s authority to establish a broadband affordability standard. They just don’t,” asserted Arturo Juarez, policy advisor for the California Alliance for Digital Equity.
Concerns Over Bill’s Amendments and ISP Verification
While advocates initially welcomed Boerner’s bill, they expressed disappointment with certain amendments, particularly the reduction in speed requirements. Juarez called the lowered speed threshold a “non-starter,” stating, “I don’t think it makes any sense to say that we’re going to lock low-income folks into second-class connectivity or essentially offer them a broadband service that doesn’t even qualify as broadband because it’s not fast enough, it doesn’t even meet the federal definition of what broadband is.”
Natalie Gonzalez, director of Digital Equity Los Angeles, echoed concerns about applying BEAD rules to existing infrastructure and subscription packages, deeming it “a pretty far reach.” She noted a lack of public legal analysis supporting how BEAD guidance would render the state legislation unviable for existing networks.
Another significant point of contention for advocates was Boerner’s proposal to allow ISPs to verify eligibility for low-income plans, rather than entrusting the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with this task. “We didn’t want ISP-based verification… because we saw that just doesn’t work, and it really represents a major barrier to access,” Juarez stated. Gonzalez highlighted privacy concerns, especially for immigrant communities, fearing that ISPs might share sensitive data with the federal government.
Advocates also advocated for broader exemptions for smaller, less profitable ISPs serving rural areas, contrasting them with major corporations. An analysis by the California Public Advocates Office suggested that a $15 low-income broadband requirement would reduce combined revenues for the four largest providers (AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Charter/Spectrum) by less than one percent, underscoring the feasibility for large entities.
Boerner Defends Stance, Calls for Federal Action
Boerner defended the bill’s amended speed requirements, stating that 50/10Mbps is sufficient for common family tasks like telehealth, online learning, and job applications. Her primary goal, she reiterated, was always to ensure affordable, basic broadband service. Addressing lobbying from the broadband industry, she acknowledged their general opposition to rate regulation but expressed a desire to balance industry interests with the undeniable need for low-income Californians to get online.
While her specific bill is on hold, an alternative state Senate bill is progressing, which aims to encourage ISPs to offer affordable broadband by making them eligible for Lifeline subsidies for 100/20Mbps service priced at $30 or less, without mandating the offering of low-cost plans.
Boerner also vocalized strong criticism against Congress for discontinuing the national Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided $30 discounts for low-income individuals. Her state-level mandate effort intensified after the ACP’s termination.
“We all saw the photos of kids outside of Taco Bell or McDonald’s using their Wi-Fi to turn in homework during the pandemic, and none of us wanted to go back to that,” she lamented. Boerner hailed the ACP as a highly successful, bipartisan program that benefited low-income Americans across the country. “I wouldn’t need to do state regulations if Congress had done their job,” she concluded, urging Congress to reinstate federal subsidies for low-income broadband access.
Boerner remains open to “new and creative ideas” for future broadband affordability legislation but did not offer specific plans for reviving her low-cost mandate proposal.