New Bill Could Create $15-a-Month Internet Plan For Californians On Welfare

A bill to have internet service providers offer a $15 a month internet option for Californians on public assistance programs including CalFresh and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families continued to garner significant opposition from internet service providers this week before the first Assembly Committee vote on it.

Assembly Bill 353, authored by Assemblywoman Tasha Boerner (D-Encinitas), would require every California internet service provider to offer for purchase to eligible households within their California service territory affordable home internet service that meets minimum speed requirements, and to make commercially reasonable efforts to promote and advertise the availability of affordable home internet service for eligible households. AB 353 would also, starting January 1, 2027, require California internet service providers to annually provide a report to the Department of Technology with specified information related to their affordable home internet service plans and broadband products.

The bill would later clarify that the cost of the internet would be no more than $15 a month with minimum speeds being at 100 megabits per second downstream and 20 megabits per second upstream and sufficient speed and latency to support distance learning and telehealth services. AB 353 also clarified that eligible households would include those where at least one member was under a qualified assistance program. There include the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program, TANF, CalFresh, the California Health Benefit Exchange/Covered California, Medi-Cal, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and financial aid programs for postsecondary education.

Assemblywoman Boerner authored the bill because of a lack of affordable internet options on the market following the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The ACP set an internet rate at $30 a month when it began at the beginning of 2022, partly as a way to help Americans still under financial distress from the COVID pandemic, as internet use was essential during lockdowns. However, with the program ending in June of last year, rates returned to market rates. Earlier this year, New York state launched the Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), which set the rate for needy households at $15 an hour to combat this. While the full implications of the Act are yet to be known, with internet service providers in New York still opposing it because of the costs tied to it, Assemblywoman Boerner opted to write a Californian version of the New York bill last month.

A $15 internet bill

“A good friend of mine calls this ‘the single mom with two kids bill,” Boerner said about AB 353.  “I always think about the single mom working two jobs — and her kids still have to get online and upload their homework to Google Classroom.

“I’ve seen the impact of the Affordable Connectivity Program and I’ve seen the need we have after it. And one of the things I like to remind people of is: it’s not a rural/urban thing, it’s not a northern California/southern California thing, it’s not a Democrat/Republican thing. If the bill passes, depending on where the income level for eligibility is set, six million people or more could benefit from the California internet bill. We had 3 million people take the Affordable Connectivity Program and that was about 50% of the need.

“If you don’t have the internet, you’re acutely aware of what you’re left out of. Kids cannot do their homework without the internet. You can’t do telehealth without the internet. You cannot apply for jobs without the internet. These are things that are essential parts of our lives.”

“We applaud Assemblymember Boerner for introducing AB 353, which aims to establish a clear path for every Californian to have a fast, affordable, and reliable internet option,” Director of the California Community Foundation Digital Equity Initiative Shayna Englin said earlier this month. “The introduction of this bill offers the legislature an opportunity to swiftly respond to the cost-of-living crisis plaguing residents and reduce their financial burdens long-term. We look forward to working with the Assemblymember to develop and pass the legislation.”

However, internet providers are deadset against the bill. A California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Public Advocates Office report last month found that a bill like the New York one would save residents more than $1 billion annually on internet service. Even if subsidized somewhat by the state, service providers would have to face increased maintenance and service rates. Working with less, it could lead to a worsened end result for all users, service providers prioritizing responses to full paying customers first, an increase of ads offering other services, or even the outright pullout of certain areas to avoid the $15 a month payments altogether.

The last option has already played out in New York, with AT&T opting to get out of the internet market there instead of comply with the New York law. With others threatening to do the same, including Space X’s Starlink, New York is on shaky ground. Despite this, and providers pledging lawsuits to any state that follows New York’s law, California, Vermont, and Massachusetts are all trying for the same thing. How internet providers in New York fare and react over the spring and summer could influence if AB 353 even makes it off the ground.

AB 353 is expected to be heard in the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee in the coming weeks.