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.

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.

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.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.