ILSR urges state action on broadband affordability, cites New York model and urges centralized enrollment and small‑provider exemptions

An analyst from the Institute for Local Self‑Reliance (ILSR) urged the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee to consider state action on broadband affordability now that the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) has lapsed, saying Vermont could learn from New York’s recently implemented Affordable Broadband Act.

"If it's not affordable, it's not accessible," said Sean Gonsalz, Associate Director for Communications, Community Broadband Networks Initiative, Institute for Local Self‑Reliance, in testimony to the committee. Gonsalz told lawmakers that the ACP — a federal $30 monthly voucher that helped low‑income households pay for internet service — expired almost exactly one year earlier and that no federal reauthorization was imminent. He said state programs can fill the gap and suggested policy design choices lawmakers should consider.

Gonsalz reviewed the key features of New York’s law, which requires large Internet service providers to offer a discounted low‑cost service (the statute set a $15 per month option at 25/3 Mbps when enacted, with an alternative 200 Mbps option for $20) and permits a waiver for providers with fewer than 20,000 subscribers. He noted legal challenges slowed the New York rollout but that the U.S. courts ultimately declined to overturn the law. The ILSR witness said states drafting similar statutes must think about speed baselines (the FCC’s current standard is 100–120 Mbps download, 20 Mbps upload), who is required to participate, and how enrollment and verification are handled.

Using federal data compiled by ILSR, Gonsalz said roughly 115,000 Vermont households were ACP‑eligible and about 26,000 had used the benefit when the program expired. He told the committee that if a state law lacks a centralized enrollment and verification process or an independent appeals channel, the implementation can grind to a halt: advocates in New York reported difficulty locating enrollment links on provider websites, slow application processing, applications only available as PDFs, poor customer‑service training about the program, and lost mail complaints.

Gonsalz recommended several specific design features for states considering affordable broadband mandates:

- Limit the obligation to providers of sufficient scale (for example, using a subscriber threshold or locations‑passed threshold) so small rural or municipal providers are not unduly burdened; - Require a minimum service speed consistent with modern broadband needs (ILSR advised aligning with the FCC’s updated benchmark, which now exceeds the older 25/3 threshold); - Create centralized enrollment and verification systems (a single portal or an independent verifier) and establish reasonable processing time limits and an external appeals mechanism; and - Require outreach and training obligations so customers and provider call centers can enroll eligible households and reduce administrative friction.

Gonsalz cautioned lawmakers that imposing a low‑cost requirement without care can lead to implementation problems and industry pushback. He cited early practical problems reported in New York and noted that large incumbents opposed the law and litigated it; he also noted that AT&T withdrew a 5G home product in New York after passage and that incumbent providers in other states voiced opposition. He stressed that legislators should balance consumer access goals with the economics of carrying large numbers of low‑income subscribers, and suggested states may prefer passings‑based thresholds tying obligations to providers that have the most reach rather than counting active subscribers alone.

Committee members asked about enrollment accessibility for seniors and for people without existing internet access. Gonsalz said advocates in New York were relying on libraries and community organizations to help and argued that a centralized enrollment portal and outreach requirements would reduce barriers for people who do not navigate provider websites easily.

Gonsalz offered to provide additional resources and data to the committee and said ILSR has tracked ACP eligibility and enrollment at the zip‑code level and monitored affordability bills in several states. He did not propose a single statutory text for Vermont but urged the committee to consider the New York law’s combination of a low cost plan, a waiver for small providers, speed requirements, a centralized enrollment/verification mechanism and reporting to ensure the law actually reaches eligible households.

Sources: testimony by Sean Gonsalz, Institute for Local Self‑Reliance, House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee hearing; ILSR ACP dashboard and public records referenced in testimony.