Lawmakers and advocates push state action to keep Internet affordable for low-income households

Legislators, municipal digital-equity officials and nonprofit advocates urged the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy to advance legislation that would ensure low-income households in Massachusetts can access affordable high-speed Internet following the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).

Representative Rita Mendez, sponsor of a proposal heard by the committee, described a $15 flat monthly option included in her bill. “So it's a $15 flat rate, and that includes taxes and fees,” Mendez told the committee, saying the plan is intended for qualified low-income consumers in communities such as Brockton where adoption gaps remain.

Senator Brendan P. (Senator Peano in transcript) and other legislators also spoke for a state response after the ACP ended. Senator Peano’s bill would require providers to offer a flat-rate plan for eligible households; in testimony he described a model that would cap plans at $50.15 a month in some versions and require minimum download speeds of 100 Mbps. Municipal and nonprofit witnesses described the program’s real-world impacts: Boston’s digital-equity survey found 24% of residents with Internet say their service is unaffordable, and Boston enrolled roughly 51,000 households in the ACP, according to Peter Faberito, senior digital equity manager for the City of Boston.

Front-line digital navigators and nonprofit providers described clients who lost ACP discounts and now face impossible tradeoffs. “This is for some people literally choosing between being able to put food on the table or purchase prescriptions,” LaCherie Weems of the Alliance for Digital Equity testified. Nonprofit VinFen described clients who used ACP discounts to access telehealth and employment supports and warned that losing affordable access jeopardizes housing, health care and benefit access for vulnerable residents.

Supporters said the bills are equity measures, not giveaways: they would align eligibility with public-assistance programs and, in some versions, require that offers include no installation fees, no waiting periods and no early-termination charges that create barriers for the poorest households. Advocates cited other states (Vermont, New York) that have adopted similar measures and urged Massachusetts to follow.

Opponents including industry trade groups told the committee that large broadband providers already offer subsidized programs for low-income households (Comcast’s Internet Essentials and Charter/Spectrum’s Internet Assist were cited) and that legislating rates risks undermining private investment and competition. NECTA (New England Cable & Telecommunications Association) and CTIA (wireless industry) representatives said arbitrary statewide price mandates could reduce choices for consumers and put network investment at risk.

No committee vote was held. Committee members said they would accept written testimony; several witnesses said they would submit additional data in writing.