U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) have introduced a bill that would not only reauthorize the USDA’s ReConnect Loan and Grant program.

As part of the reauthorization, the proposed legislation aims to improve and expand the program so that Communications Union Districts (CUDs) would be eligible for federal broadband subsidies.

According to the announcement, the reauthorization would set a baseline of symmetrical 100 megabits per second (Mbps) connections for broadband grants, up from the program’s dated current standard of 25/3 Mbps.

The bill also clarifies that the USDA can make grants, loans, or grant-loan combinations under ReConnect, and claims to “improve coordination and communication among stakeholders at the federal level.”

“The last few years have shown all of us how important high-speed broadband is to our communities. From online school and remote work to telemedicine, a good connection is essential,” Senator Welch said of the reauthorization. 

“Many rural communities don’t have access to broadband at all, let alone the higher speeds needed to participate in today’s digital economy.”

The duo are quick to point out that over a third of Americans lack access to one or no broadband provider, and more than 45 million Americans lack fixed terrestrial 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream broadband, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) minimum standard for broadband access.

*This is the second installment of an ongoing series we are calling Connected Complex looks at how states and local communities are working to address the often complex challenges involved in bringing high-speed Internet access to multi-dwelling units.

California lawmakers approved new legislation letting renters opt out of bulk-billing arrangements that force them to pay for Internet service from a specific provider. Lawmakers say they didn’t ban the practice for fear of undermining some of the more beneficial aspects of bulk billing, which can make deployments more financially tenable for smaller providers.

Starting January 1, AB1414 requires that landlords “allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party Internet service provider, such as through a bulk-billing arrangement, to provide service for wired Internet, cellular, or satellite service that is offered in connection with the tenancy."

Image

The new law states that if landlords prevent tenants from opting out of such arrangements, tenants "may deduct the cost of the subscription to the third-party Internet service provider from the rent." Landlords are also prohibited from any sort of retaliation.

AB1414 passed the California state Senate in a 30–7 vote a month ago, and was signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom last week.

The mystery of who and what killed the California Affordable Home Internet Act is coming into view.

As a California lawmaker hinted when the bill was abruptly withdrawn in June, the evidence seems to be pointing to the new leadership now directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) – the agency administering the $42.5 billion federal BEAD program to expand Internet access.

In a recently released FAQ published by the NTIA this week, a corroborating clue has emerged.

And what may be the smoking gun is a bullet buried on page 48, under section 3.29, after the question: "May an Eligible Entity (states) require a specific rate for the low-cost service option (LCSO) when required by state law?”

NTIA's answer:

“No. The IIJA prohibits NTIA or the Assistant Secretary from engaging in rate regulation. Because the Assistant Secretary must approve the LCSO in the Final Proposal, the rate contained may not be the result of rate regulation. The RPN (Restructuring Policy Notice) addressed this fundamental flaw in the BEAD NOFO. The RPN eliminated BEAD NOFO requirements dictating price and other terms for the required low-cost service option.”

“Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LCSO requirements removed by the RPN. More specifically, the RPN ‘prohibits Eligible Entities from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO rate a subgrantee must offer’ (BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice, p.7). Violation would result in rejection of the Final (BEAD) Proposal (emphasis added).”

Last week, a California Assemblymember who had sponsored legislation for a broadband affordability law abruptly withdrew the legislation. 

But what really killed the broadband affordability bill in California? Was it opposition to the proposed legislation from within the state or pressure from the Trump administration?

The Bill Was Advancing Until…

Modeled on New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the California Affordable Home Internet Act was first introduced in January. It aimed to require Internet service providers that operate in the Golden State to offer a $15 per month broadband service plan for income-eligible households.

Image

The proposed legislation was introduced as AB 353 by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner and was initially supported by the California Alliance for Digital Equity (CADE).

Over the intervening months, CADE and proponents of the bill offered resources and recommendations on how the bill could be made more effective than the ABA, hoping to avoid the pitfalls that advocates were seeing with the rollout and implementation of New York’s law.

On June 4, the California bill advanced through the state Assembly and moved on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

Today, The American Prospect published some of our original reporting on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was signed into law on Independence Day. In it, our Associate Director for Communications Sean Gonsalves writes:

"Sold to voters as a way to cut 'waste, fraud, and abuse,' a more honest assessment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) is that it’s just a Big Brazen Bid to shred the social safety net.

Naturally, the looming cuts to Medicaid and what they will mean for rural hospitals in particular has received the most press.

But there are numerous other ways those in need of government assistance will be further pressed into poverty, including through a particularly narrow-minded Sophie’s Choice: internet access or food?

Image

Last year, GOP leaders blocked bipartisan efforts to fund an extension of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which offered 23 million eligible households a $30-per-month voucher to help pay for internet service. As if letting the ACP die wasn’t a big enough blow, OBBBA not only increases the paperwork burden required to qualify for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, it completely removes internet service costs as an eligible deduction.

California lawmakers’ efforts to pass a new law mandating affordable broadband access is at risk of being destroyed by industry lobbying. California insiders say the changes are so dramatic they may wind up making broadband affordability in the state worse – undermining years of digital equity activism and discarding a rare opportunity to bridge the digital divide.

The California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner last January, would require that broadband providers in the state provide broadband at no more than $15 per month for low-income households participating in a qualified public assistance program.

The original legislation mandated that state residents should be able to receive $15 for all ISPs for broadband at speeds of 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 20 Mbps upstream. The proposal mirrored similar efforts by New York State which opened the door to other state efforts after the Supreme Court recently refused to hear a telecom industry challenge.

Image

“I want to get something fair and reasonable that helps those who need it most,” Boerner said in a press release. “AB 353 will fill the gap and ensure our children can turn in their homework, families can get access to telehealth, and apply for jobs online.”

On June 4 a vote moved the legislation through the state Assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

Legislation that would require ISPs operating in Massachusetts to offer qualifying low-income households high-speed Internet service for $15 per month is set to have its first legislative hearing.

The hearing is slated to run from 11 am to 1 pm ET today before the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy. Committee members will hear testimony on multiple bills, including two companion pieces of legislation known as An Act Preserving Broadband Service for Low-income Consumers – S.2318 (filed by State Sen. Pavel Payano) and H.3527 (filed by State Rep. Rita Mendes).

The proceedings can be viewed here.

Inspired by New York Law

The hearing in Massachusetts comes as similar legislation is being considered by state lawmakers in Vermont and California – all three of which are modeled on New York’s Affordable Broadband Act which, after numerous legal challenges, went into effect in the Empire State in January of this year after the US Supreme Court declined to intervene and overturn a U.S. Appellate Court ruling that upheld the law.

Like the New York law, the bill being proposed in Massachusetts requires ISPs operating in Massachusetts to offer qualifying low-income households high-speed Internet service for $15 per month.

However, the Massachusetts bill set the minimum speed at 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) download to mirror the increased FCC definition for minimum broadband speeds that had been raised from the previous benchmark of 25/3 Mbps, which was the federal standard when the New York law was written.

*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.

With New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) now in effect, lawmakers in other states are filing similar legislation that requires large Internet Service Providers to offer low-cost plans for financially-strapped households in their respective states.

In Massachusetts, State Sen. Pavel Payano filed a bill earlier this month similar to New York’s law that seeks to establish a $15/month plan for low-income households in the Bay State.

Image

Then, earlier this week, California Assemblymember Tasha Boerner introduced Assembly Bill 353 that would mandate ISPs “make affordable home Internet plans available to California residents,” Boerner’s office said in a press release.

“Right now, families are struggling to afford essential services, like the Internet,” Boerner said in a press statement.

Speaking to why passing an affordable broadband law was important, Boerner put it in plain terms, noting that “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.”