Committee hears expert testimony on H.121, a bill to require low‑cost broadband plans for qualifying households

Paul Goodman, legal counsel at the Center for Accessible Technology, testified before the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee on H.121, a proposal that would require broadband providers to offer low‑income plans at set prices and speeds.

Goodman said the draft law contains language similar to New York’s Broadband Act and would require qualifying low‑income households to be offered plans at 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download for $15 and 200 Mbps download for $20. He recommended the committee consider a higher baseline — "a household requires at least, 100 megabits per second down and 20 megabits per second up," — and pairing any price cap with subsidies for the poorest households.

The nut graf: Goodman argued lawmakers should balance affordability, service quality and program viability. He cited a California Public Advocates Office analysis showing broad consumer savings and limited revenue impact on the largest providers as evidence that net benefits to consumers are plausible but said safeguards are needed for smaller providers and for minimum service standards.

Most important details and supporting facts

Goodman summarized findings from a Public Advocates Office report in California that modeled the effect of a $15 low‑income plan under the then‑current federal standard. He said the report estimated nearly $100 million per year in consumer savings for California and found that a $15 requirement "would, potentially reduce the combined revenues of the 4 largest broadband providers by less than 1%." He attributed those limited revenue impacts to economies of scale and high margins on premium tiers.

He described the California market as dominated by four large providers — an incumbent telephone provider (AT&T) and three cable companies (Comcast, Cox and Charter Spectrum) — and said those firms' high average revenue per user and territorial market structure reduce competitive pressure on price. He cautioned that many low‑income offerings in practice deliver speeds, data allowances and equipment that are insufficient for multi‑occupant households.

On service standards and adoption

Goodman recommended raising the minimum speed standard in the bill to 100 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up, arguing that lower speeds lead to poor user experience and reduced long‑term adoption. He said experience in California shows that when low‑cost plans do not deliver adequate speed or reliability, households often abandon the service and do not become long‑term customers.

On subsidies and exemptions

Goodman recommended pairing price caps with targeted subsidies for the most impoverished households to increase adoption and reduce financial strain on smaller providers. He noted H.121’s draft exemption allowing providers that serve 20,000 households or fewer to seek relief if the requirement would be "unreasonable or unsustainable," and described that exemption as an important tool to preserve smaller providers’ viability.

On public‑interest benefits

Referencing the Public Advocates Office report, Goodman said the analysis accounted for downstream savings such as telehealth. He cited figures from the report that "telehealth visits as opposed to in person visits save patients on average between $174 and $219 and saves providers roughly $2,211." He said those savings stem from avoided transit costs and lost work hours.

On existing federal and state programs

Goodman described existing subsidy programs and recent federal support: he said the federal Lifeline subsidy is $9.25 and California’s Lifeline supplement is $16.25 (applied primarily to phone service), and he noted that the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) previously boosted subscription but that many signups were lost when ACP funding expired. He said a bill in the California legislature would create a roughly $20 subsidy with a consumer contribution of no more than $10 in its current form.

Questions from committee members and follow up

Committee members asked about the bases for the telehealth savings figures, broadband coverage and the role of satellite and wireless technologies. Goodman said the telehealth numbers came from the California Public Advocates Office analysis and that he would follow up with the study. He estimated roughly 78% of Californians meet the 100/20 broadband standard in recent data he had seen but noted that other residents still rely on much slower connections such as dial‑up or DSL. He said satellite services generally do not meet the high‑speed standard and that fixed wireless faces geographic and line‑of‑sight limits in many areas.

No formal committee action on H.121 was recorded during the hearing. Goodman offered to provide written reports and source materials to committee staff for follow‑up.

Ending

Committee members thanked Goodman and asked him to share the Public Advocates Office report and other follow‑up materials with staff. Goodman said he would provide the materials and welcomed additional questions.