Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Broadband topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Morrow proposes low-cost broadband option modeled on New York program
Summary
Representative Chris Morrow introduced a bill to require participating providers to offer a low-cost broadband tier (proposed at $15 a month, 25 Mbps) for low-income Vermonters, with eligibility linked to federal lifeline or home heating fuel assistance programs; committee members raised questions about scope, cost shifts and enforcement.
Representative Chris Morrow introduced a proposal on Feb. 4, 2025, to create an affordable broadband option for low-income Vermonters modeled on a New York program that has faced litigation but remains in effect. The bill would require participating providers meeting a size threshold to offer a low-cost service tier priced at $15 per month for a minimum speed (written in the draft as 25 megabits per second).
Morrow said the bill is intended to be "as low friction as possible" and suggested eligibility would be determined by participation in the federal lifeline program or the home heating fuel assistance program. He described the bill as a response to the expiration of temporary federal programs, noting Vermont’s temporary $40-a-month COVID lifeline and the federal Affordable Connectivity Program, which provided a $30 monthly discount plus a device subsidy that ended in mid‑2024.
Committee members asked practical questions about the structure and effects of the proposal. Members noted the bill currently includes a provider-size threshold of 20,000 customers, which would exclude many smaller providers and some communication-union districts. Committee members also raised concerns about who would bear the cost difference if the discounted rate is lower than market rates: Morrow said there would be a cost shift of some kind and compared the concept to GMP’s Energy Assistance Program, which is funded by a monthly charge and provides discounts to qualifying customers.
Committee members asked whether the Public Utility Commission would oversee and enforce the program; Morrow said the PUC was a logical oversight candidate but that he wanted to consult the commission. The bill’s draft also included enforcement penalties (the sponsor referenced a $1,000-per-violation figure in discussion) and the sponsor said he expects conversations with providers and regulators.
Morrow cited that the New York model was challenged in court; he said the Second Circuit upheld the New York program and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review it, allowing the Second Circuit decision to stand, though he advised the committee to confirm legal details with counsel. The committee did not take testimony or vote on the bill during the ten-minute introduction period; follow-up hearings were anticipated.
