[[link removed]]

AN INTERNET CONNECTIVITY LIFELINE FOR MILLIONS IS ABOUT TO GO DARK  
[[link removed]]


 

Grace Segers
May 14, 2024
The New Republic
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Affordable Connectivity Program is about to come to an
end—unless Congress does something. _

Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images Marisol Coronado, 54, is
one of the 700,000 people in Los Angeles County who will be affected
when the Affordable Connectivity Program comes to an end., Genaro
Molina/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

 

A program intended to help low-income Americans connect to the
internet is likely to disappear at the end of this month, and its
supporters in Congress have limited options to keep it afloat.
Although the Affordable Connectivity Program—used by roughly 23
million households to obtain broadband access—enjoys bipartisan and
bicameral support
[[link removed]],
it’s uncertain whether Congress will be able to pass a measure to
extend it  before the end of May, its final month of funding.

The Affordable Connectivity Program provided up to $30 monthly
subsidies on internet bills for low-income families, and as much as
$75 in monthly discounts for eligible households on tribal lands.
Without additional funding, the ACP already stopped accepting new
enrollment in February. April was also the final month of full funding
for the program, and the Federal Communications Commission was only
able to offer partial reimbursement
[[link removed]]
for participating internet providers in the month of May: The
available discount for nontribal households dropped to $14 per month
and to $35 for families on tribal lands.

Supporters of the ACP argue that it is a necessity for low-income
Americans to participate in daily life. “We know that connectivity
is one of the important, necessary parts of living life in the
twenty-first century,” said GOP Senator J.D. Vance, one of the
program’s staunchest supporters in Congress, in a speech on the
Senate floor on Thursday. A recent national survey
[[link removed]] by the Benenson Strategy Group
found that 95 percent of ACP recipients said they would struggle with
costs if the program expired, 75 percent said they would worry about
losing access to telehealth services, and 65 percent would fear job
loss. The same survey found that 49 percent of ACP participants are
military families, 26 percent live in rural areas, and 19 percent are
households with seniors.

But the path forward for extending the ACP is murky. There are few
must-pass bills that will be considered between now and November,
giving few opportunities to attach an extension to a larger measure.
Passing a stand-alone bill may also be difficult, in no small part due
to political considerations; Congress often struggles to work on
bipartisan legislation in the months before an election.

A group of senators had attempted to attach an amendment extending the
ACP to the bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration,
which was approved without amendment votes on Thursday night. That
reauthorization bill will now receive a vote in the House, and it
seems unlikely that there will be any ACP-related amendments attached
to the legislation in the lower chamber.

Nonetheless, supporters of the ACP are working to find another path
for extension. A congressional aide familiar with negotiations said
that “the FAA is not the end of the runway for the ACP.”

“We’re keeping every possible option open to fund this program
past May. Millions of families, seniors, and veterans rely on this
program—we need to make moves,” the aide said.

One option is the ACP Extension Act, which would provide an additional
$7 billion in funding to keep the program afloat. Representative
Yvette Clarke, the lead sponsor of that bill in the House, indicated
in a statement that she would continue to press for its passage.

“If there is one thing Democrats and Republicans should be able to
agree on, it is the ACP. We have an opportunity to do so right
now—and we must act before it’s too late,” Clarke said.

Meanwhile, Senator Ben Ray Luján, the lead sponsor of the amendment
to the FAA reauthorization measure, has filed it as a stand-alone bill
[[link removed]].
The Luján amendment, which garnered bipartisan support, attempted to
address some of the criticisms
[[link removed]]
of the ACP. It would provide $6 billion for the program, lower than
the $7 billion offered by the ACP Extension Act. It would also cut the
income threshold to 135 percent of the federal poverty line, down from
200 percent, end eligibility based on the Agriculture Department
Community Eligibility Provision, and eliminate a one-time $100 subsidy
for wireless devices.

An October study by USC Annenberg found that lowering the poverty
threshold would result in about 7.4 million households that currently
qualify for the ACP becoming ineligible; as not everyone eligible for
the program is currently enrolled, this could result in roughly three
million households losing the benefit.

But some supporters say targeting eligibility would not necessarily be
a bad thing. “Just earlier this week, the president of a local
internet service provider said he was informed that he’s eligible
for the $30 a month because the school lunch program in [West
Virginia] makes everybody eligible,” Republican Senator Shelley
Moore Capito said in a hearing last week, saying that while she is
“supportive of the program,” she believes “we’ve got to narrow
it down to the need.”

John Heitmann, the outside counsel for the National Lifeline
Association, said that narrowing the eligibility would still ensure
that those who need the program the most would be able to obtain it.
“They’re people who have trouble connecting to the internet every
month and make choices whether to buy food or connectivity,” said
Heitmann.

The changes in the amendment are reflective of some hard opposition in
Congress. Several Republicans have raised concerns
[[link removed]]
about whether the ACP truly connected a new population of Americans to
the internet, and whether it is duplicative of a preexisting program
to help low-income families secure broadband access. GOP Senator Ted
Cruz has argued
[[link removed]]
that the program Lifeline, which is also intended to lower internet
costs, renders the ACP redundant. (Lifeline offers lower subsidies
[[link removed]]
and has a 135 percent income threshold.)

In a hearing last week, economist Paul Winfree, a former Trump
administration official, argued
[[link removed]]
that the ACP had counterintuitively increased internet costs by
subsidizing demand. Skeptics also note that low-income households in
rural areas were less likely
[[link removed]]
to take advantage of the program than urban Americans. However, at
least one model found
[[link removed]]
that more rural households had used the program than initially
predicted. Vance argued in his speech on Thursday that the program
encouraged investment in rural areas.

“The guarantee that consumers will be able to pay their internet
bills regardless of their income level is one of the things that makes
it possible for a lot of companies to invest in rural broadband
infrastructure,” said Vance.

Other critics also worry that the ACP is being appreciated by the
telecommunications companies who are reimbursed by the federal
government just as much, if not more, than the poor households
receiving the benefit, considering the program a form of “corporate
welfare.” A January report by _The Wall Street Journal_
[[link removed]]
found that, of the nearly $13 billion spent by the federal government
on the ACP over three years, around $3 billion was given to the
internet service provider Charter Communications. The inspector
general for the FCC has also raised concerns that providers were not
following ACP rules, warning in a September report that dozens of
providers had claimed reimbursement for subscribers suspected of
nonusage.

But Gigi Sohn, the spokesperson for the Affordable Broadband Campaign,
argued that the program was “mutually beneficial” to providers and
those who need to be connected to the internet. “I don’t think it
benefits one party more than the other,” said Sohn. “Is it
corporate welfare, in a way? Yes. But for me, it’s corporate welfare
that has a great public benefit.”

Although the future of the ACP is uncertain, broadband access remains
a potent issue for lawmakers. This week, the Senate Commerce Committee
is also expected to consider spectrum legislation
[[link removed]]
from committee Chair Maria Cantwell that would include funds for the
ACP.

The ACP grew from a pandemic-era benefit, and advocates argue that
life has simply changed too much to end the program. Reliance on the
internet has increased ever more with working from home and the rise
of popularity of telehealth in particular. A recent report
[[link removed]]
by the Chamber of Progress estimated that, if the ACP were permitted
to expire, subscribers would lose around $1.4 billion in savings due
to loss of telehealth services and more than $10 billion in potential
lost wages.

“There are certain things post-Covid where we’re not rolling back
the clock,” said Heitmann. “There are much higher bandwidth needs
now than there were just before Covid.”

Grace Segers [[link removed]]
@Grace_Segers [[link removed]]

Grace Segers is a staff writer at _The New Republic._

* Affordable Connectivity Program; Internet Access; Broadband;
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]