Congress needs to act on broadband access
The United States has lately gotten serious about broadband expansion, with the federal government spending tens of billions of dollars to deploy services all over the country — especially in rural areas, where coverage is sparse. But how widely connectivity is available matters little if consumers can’t afford it. And unless Congress acts fast, many won’t be able to.
The Affordable Connectivity Program came into being under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 after the coronavirus pandemic forced a huge portion of the population to work, learn and even socialize from computers at home. The benefit — $30 per month to households whose income falls under a certain poverty threshold or that receive certain other federal benefits — has proved popular: Twenty-three million households — more than 1 in 6 nationwide — subscribe. More than twothirds of respondents to an FCC survey of beneficiaries said they had inconsistent service beforehand or no service at all. And more than three-quarters say losing the benefit would disrupt their access.
Despite all this, the program’s funding will lapse by the end of April because Congress has managed neither to devise a permanent solution nor to provide stopgap funding. The former would, of course, be preferable — but for the moment, only the latter appears politically possible. President Biden urged congressional appropriators last fall to fund the program through the rest of the year; in response, a bipartisan group of legislators devised the $7 billion Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act. Though there’s ample support in the Senate, where J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) are backers, and though it could pass the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has refused to bring it to the floor.
His hesitation makes little sense. Of course, there’s a progressive case for the program: The government has a role in ensuring that every American has access to critical infrastructure, which broadband has proved to be. Without internet access, residents have a harder time setting up health-care appointments, finding jobs, completing schoolwork and more. But this reality creates a strong conservative case for the program, too — and not only because the greatest percentage increase in enrollment has taken place in rural states that trend red.
According to Cigna Healthcare, patients who use virtual care save an average of $93 for a non-urgent visit online compared with an in-person trip and an average of $141 at a virtual urgent clinic. The Medicaid-eligible and Affordable-Connectivity-Program-eligible populations overlap, which means Medicaid savings could offset the costs of access to telehealth. There’s more: Easy use of the internet smooths the way to completing schoolwork, finding a job and communicating with social services. All of these, according to research by Brookings Metro and the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, lead to savings for the government by reducing need for and use of government benefit programs.
The Commerce Department is enmeshed in the slow but steady process of reviewing state plans to bring the internet to areas (mostly in rural America) underserved by today’s networks. This Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program has $42.5 billion ready to ensure that providers build in rural areas by offering them subsidies to do so. But the size of the subsidy necessary to attract one to a given area depends, of course, on the expected vibrancy of the market there. If providers know there’s something like the Affordable Connectivity Program that will bring onboard consumers who might otherwise forgo broadband, these underserved markets look more attractive — and the federal government doesn’t need to offer as much money for the providers to deploy.
None of this is to say the program is perfect. Why pay $30, for example, when you could pay, say, $20 or $25? Internet service providers, as it turns out, are likely to base the prices for their low-income programs on whatever subsidy the government decides to give out — to a certain point. The Federal Communications Commission can study what this point is to reduce the portion of the subsidy captured by providers rather than consumers. Similarly, there’s room for revision on who’s eligible for the program: at the moment, households with income under 200 percent of the poverty rate — or about $30,000 per year for a single person. Are these the changes Mr. Johnson wants to make to the program, or could other tweaks persuade him to bring an extension to the floor? He should say. Millions of people’s access to health care, employment, education and more depends on his answer.