Now that the lengthy legal beef has been settled and New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) is set to take effect this month, it marks a potentially pivotal moment in a national effort to address one of the biggest barriers to broadband adoption: 

Affordability.

The first-in-the-nation law requiring large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in New York to offer a $15/month plan for qualifying low-income households stands to benefit the approximately 1.7 million New Yorkers who had been enrolled in the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Congress allowed to expire last spring.

With a new administration entering the White House – supported by GOP Congressional leaders who blocked previous ACP renewal efforts – the newly enacted ABA “paints a path that other states will look at,” as New Street Research analyst Blair Levin recently noted.

Image

“In a world where the federal government is subsidizing low-income households for $30 a month, states did not need to take action to address low-income broadband affordability,” Levin added. But now, without the ACP benefit, “states may try to assist low-income households to keep them connected.”

Now that the lengthy legal beef has been settled and New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) is set to take effect this month, it marks a potentially pivotal moment in a national effort to address one of the biggest barriers to broadband adoption: 

Affordability.

The first-in-the-nation law requiring large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in New York to offer a $15/month plan for qualifying low-income households stands to benefit the approximately 1.7 million New Yorkers who had been enrolled in the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Congress allowed to expire last spring.

With a new administration entering the White House – supported by GOP Congressional leaders who blocked previous ACP renewal efforts – the newly enacted ABA “paints a path that other states will look at,” as New Street Research analyst Blair Levin recently noted.

Image

“In a world where the federal government is subsidizing low-income households for $30 a month, states did not need to take action to address low-income broadband affordability,” Levin added. But now, without the ACP benefit, “states may try to assist low-income households to keep them connected.”

Now that the lengthy legal beef has been settled and New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) is set to take effect this month, it marks a potentially pivotal moment in a national effort to address one of the biggest barriers to broadband adoption: 

Affordability.

The first-in-the-nation law requiring large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in New York to offer a $15/month plan for qualifying low-income households stands to benefit the approximately 1.7 million New Yorkers who had been enrolled in the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Congress allowed to expire last spring.

With a new administration entering the White House – supported by GOP Congressional leaders who blocked previous ACP renewal efforts – the newly enacted ABA “paints a path that other states will look at,” as New Street Research analyst Blair Levin recently noted.

Image

“In a world where the federal government is subsidizing low-income households for $30 a month, states did not need to take action to address low-income broadband affordability,” Levin added. But now, without the ACP benefit, “states may try to assist low-income households to keep them connected.”

Now that the lengthy legal beef has been settled and New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) is set to take effect this month, it marks a potentially pivotal moment in a national effort to address one of the biggest barriers to broadband adoption: 

Affordability.

The first-in-the-nation law requiring large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in New York to offer a $15/month plan for qualifying low-income households stands to benefit the approximately 1.7 million New Yorkers who had been enrolled in the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Congress allowed to expire last spring.

With a new administration entering the White House – supported by GOP Congressional leaders who blocked previous ACP renewal efforts – the newly enacted ABA “paints a path that other states will look at,” as New Street Research analyst Blair Levin recently noted.

Image

“In a world where the federal government is subsidizing low-income households for $30 a month, states did not need to take action to address low-income broadband affordability,” Levin added. But now, without the ACP benefit, “states may try to assist low-income households to keep them connected.”

Now that the lengthy legal beef has been settled and New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) is set to take effect this month, it marks a potentially pivotal moment in a national effort to address one of the biggest barriers to broadband adoption: 

Affordability.

The first-in-the-nation law requiring large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating in New York to offer a $15/month plan for qualifying low-income households stands to benefit the approximately 1.7 million New Yorkers who had been enrolled in the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) Congress allowed to expire last spring.

With a new administration entering the White House – supported by GOP Congressional leaders who blocked previous ACP renewal efforts – the newly enacted ABA “paints a path that other states will look at,” as New Street Research analyst Blair Levin recently noted.

Image

“In a world where the federal government is subsidizing low-income households for $30 a month, states did not need to take action to address low-income broadband affordability,” Levin added. But now, without the ACP benefit, “states may try to assist low-income households to keep them connected.”

Here at ILSR we’re no stranger to telecom monopoly-backed efforts to mislead the public about the significant benefits of community owned broadband access.

That’s why a new “study” by the industry-backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) maligning municipal broadband doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

The study professes to take a look at a very small number of municipal broadband networks, then makes sweeping and patently false claims about the entire sector.

“In most cases, local governments have neither the competence nor the economies of scale to deliver broadband as well as private ISPs,” the study concludes. “So, favoring government-owned networks wastes societal resources, creates unfair competition, and is frequently unsustainable in the long run.”

Image

There’s numerous problems here. One being that the survey only looked at 20 municipal broadband networks in a country where more than 450 community broadband networks – serving close to 800 different communities – now pepper the American landscape.

The study author acknowledges the study’s sample size was “too small for the data to represent all U.S. [government-owned broadband networks] reliably,” then proceeds to make broad sweeping assumptions unsupported by any actual evidence.

Here at ILSR we’re no stranger to telecom monopoly-backed efforts to mislead the public about the significant benefits of community owned broadband access.

That’s why a new “study” by the industry-backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) maligning municipal broadband doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

The study professes to take a look at a very small number of municipal broadband networks, then makes sweeping and patently false claims about the entire sector.

“In most cases, local governments have neither the competence nor the economies of scale to deliver broadband as well as private ISPs,” the study concludes. “So, favoring government-owned networks wastes societal resources, creates unfair competition, and is frequently unsustainable in the long run.”

Image

There’s numerous problems here. One being that the survey only looked at 20 municipal broadband networks in a country where more than 450 community broadband networks – serving close to 800 different communities – now pepper the American landscape.

The study author acknowledges the study’s sample size was “too small for the data to represent all U.S. [government-owned broadband networks] reliably,” then proceeds to make broad sweeping assumptions unsupported by any actual evidence.

Here at ILSR we’re no stranger to telecom monopoly-backed efforts to mislead the public about the significant benefits of community owned broadband access.

That’s why a new “study” by the industry-backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) maligning municipal broadband doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

The study professes to take a look at a very small number of municipal broadband networks, then makes sweeping and patently false claims about the entire sector.

“In most cases, local governments have neither the competence nor the economies of scale to deliver broadband as well as private ISPs,” the study concludes. “So, favoring government-owned networks wastes societal resources, creates unfair competition, and is frequently unsustainable in the long run.”

Image

There’s numerous problems here. One being that the survey only looked at 20 municipal broadband networks in a country where more than 450 community broadband networks – serving close to 800 different communities – now pepper the American landscape.

The study author acknowledges the study’s sample size was “too small for the data to represent all U.S. [government-owned broadband networks] reliably,” then proceeds to make broad sweeping assumptions unsupported by any actual evidence.

Here at ILSR we’re no stranger to telecom monopoly-backed efforts to mislead the public about the significant benefits of community owned broadband access.

That’s why a new “study” by the industry-backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) maligning municipal broadband doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

The study professes to take a look at a very small number of municipal broadband networks, then makes sweeping and patently false claims about the entire sector.

“In most cases, local governments have neither the competence nor the economies of scale to deliver broadband as well as private ISPs,” the study concludes. “So, favoring government-owned networks wastes societal resources, creates unfair competition, and is frequently unsustainable in the long run.”

Image

There’s numerous problems here. One being that the survey only looked at 20 municipal broadband networks in a country where more than 450 community broadband networks – serving close to 800 different communities – now pepper the American landscape.

The study author acknowledges the study’s sample size was “too small for the data to represent all U.S. [government-owned broadband networks] reliably,” then proceeds to make broad sweeping assumptions unsupported by any actual evidence.

Here at ILSR we’re no stranger to telecom monopoly-backed efforts to mislead the public about the significant benefits of community owned broadband access.

That’s why a new “study” by the industry-backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) maligning municipal broadband doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

The study professes to take a look at a very small number of municipal broadband networks, then makes sweeping and patently false claims about the entire sector.

“In most cases, local governments have neither the competence nor the economies of scale to deliver broadband as well as private ISPs,” the study concludes. “So, favoring government-owned networks wastes societal resources, creates unfair competition, and is frequently unsustainable in the long run.”

Image

There’s numerous problems here. One being that the survey only looked at 20 municipal broadband networks in a country where more than 450 community broadband networks – serving close to 800 different communities – now pepper the American landscape.

The study author acknowledges the study’s sample size was “too small for the data to represent all U.S. [government-owned broadband networks] reliably,” then proceeds to make broad sweeping assumptions unsupported by any actual evidence.