Congressional Republicans are moving forward on a plan to kill a popular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program providing free Wi-Fi to schoolchildren. Critics of the repeal say it’s a “cruel” effort that will undermine initiatives to bridge the affordability and access gap for families long stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The effort, spearheaded by Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, leverages the Congressional Review Act to roll back FCC changes to E-Rate, a government program that helps subsidize deployment of broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools.

Accelerated by the remote education boom of pandemic lockdowns, communities country wide had petitioned the FCC to expand the program. The goal: allowing rural schools to leverage E-Rate funding to provide free mobile Wi-Fi hotspots to families that either couldn’t afford broadband – or found broadband entirely out of reach.

Image

So in July 2024 the FCC voted to expand the program. Historically, E-Rate could only be used to improve access on school or library grounds. The expansion allowed schools to provide limited access to free Wi-Fi hotspots via school buses or other alternatives. The expansion did not involve an increase in the E-Rate budget or any new taxes on U.S. residents. It recognized that the concept of “school” had eclipsed the 20th century definition of a room in a community building.

“I believe every library and every school library in this country should be able to loan out Wi-Fi hotspots to help keep their patrons and kids connected,” former FCC boss Jessica Rosenwocel said when the reforms were announced. “It is 2024 in the United States. This should be our baseline. We can use the E-Rate program to make it happen.”

Congressional Republicans are moving forward on a plan to kill a popular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program providing free Wi-Fi to schoolchildren. Critics of the repeal say it’s a “cruel” effort that will undermine initiatives to bridge the affordability and access gap for families long stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The effort, spearheaded by Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, leverages the Congressional Review Act to roll back FCC changes to E-Rate, a government program that helps subsidize deployment of broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools.

Accelerated by the remote education boom of pandemic lockdowns, communities country wide had petitioned the FCC to expand the program. The goal: allowing rural schools to leverage E-Rate funding to provide free mobile Wi-Fi hotspots to families that either couldn’t afford broadband – or found broadband entirely out of reach.

Image

So in July 2024 the FCC voted to expand the program. Historically, E-Rate could only be used to improve access on school or library grounds. The expansion allowed schools to provide limited access to free Wi-Fi hotspots via school buses or other alternatives. The expansion did not involve an increase in the E-Rate budget or any new taxes on U.S. residents. It recognized that the concept of “school” had eclipsed the 20th century definition of a room in a community building.

“I believe every library and every school library in this country should be able to loan out Wi-Fi hotspots to help keep their patrons and kids connected,” former FCC boss Jessica Rosenwocel said when the reforms were announced. “It is 2024 in the United States. This should be our baseline. We can use the E-Rate program to make it happen.”

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, the following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Jake Neenan was originally published here.

The broadband industry keeps trying to get the Supreme Court to help them, and the Supreme Court keeps saying no.

The high court said again Monday that it will not hear the industry’s challenge to a New York law capping broadband prices for low-income customers. The denial Monday...keep(s) the door open for other states considering similar laws.

State legislators in at least California and Massachusetts are already considering similar laws.

ISPs had told justices they feared states doing so, writing that if the law were upheld “many state legislators and bureaucrats would surely then follow New York’s lead.”

Image

New York’s Affordable Broadband Act requires monthly prices of no more than $20 for households participating in programs like SNAP and Medicaid. ISPs with less than 20,000 subscribers were tentatively exempted, but large ISPs now bound by the law cover 95 percent of the state’s homes and businesses.

Charter and Altice already offered compliant plans per agreements with the state, and Verizon had a similar affordable plan with more stringent eligibility requirements. The law went into effect Jan. 15.

*In partnership with Broadband Breakfast, we occasionally republish each other's content. The following story by Broadband Breakfast Reporter Blake Ledbetter was originally published here.

A New England ISP trade group is pushing back against a Massachusetts bill that seeks to cap broadband rates for low-income households.

The Massachusetts bill mandates that all state-based ISPs create and promote an affordable broadband plan or risk a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

The requirement would apply to wireline, fixed wireless, and satellite providers, both private and public. If passed, the bill would require ISPs to offer a 100 Mbps download speed plan for $15 a month “inclusive of any recurring taxes and fees.”

“NECTA is concerned on any state effort to establish rate regulation over broadband products and service,” said Anna Lucey, spokeswoman for the New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association, a group which includes Comcast and Charter.

She said NECTA members already offer low-income broadband programs that include significantly reduced rates for qualifying households in the state.

“The rate regulation proposed in this bill is not only unnecessary but would be counterproductive—introducing significant inefficiencies, imposing substantial additional compliance costs and uncertainty for ISPs, and ultimately distracting from the shared goal of connecting as many Massachusetts residents as possible to robust and affordable broadband services,” she added.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Pavel Payano (D) and Rep. Rita Mendes (D), could also run into trouble with the Federal Communications Commission if Chairman Brendan Carr intends to restrict states that interfere with the agency’s light-touch approach to broadband regulation.

The bill was offered as a response to the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) in May 2024, which served 368,000 families in the state.

*The Massachusetts law mirrors a similar bill now in effect in New York.