Congress should act to keep 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 two-thirds of respondents to an Federal Communications Commission 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 Joe 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. There’s more: Easy use of the internet smooths the way to completing schoolwork, finding a job and communicating with social services.
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. The FCC 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. Are these the changes 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.