Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances AB 353 to require lower‑cost home internet options for low‑income Californians
Summary
AB 353, the Affordable Home Internet Act of 2025, won committee approval after proponents said millions of households lost subsidized broadband access following the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program; opponents warned price caps or mandates could reduce private investment or limit options in less-dense areas.
Assemblymember Chair Boerner presented AB 353, the Affordable Home Internet Act of 2025, telling the Communications and Conveyance Committee the bill “would mandate California Internet service providers to provide affordable home Internet to qualified low income households participating in select public assistance programs.”
Nut graf: The bill responds to the end of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) by proposing a state-level affordability floor for home broadband plans targeted at qualifying low‑income households. Proponents said the measure is necessary to restore subscriptions lost when the ACP expired; opponents including major wireless and broadband trade groups said a state price mandate risks reducing network investment and consumer choice.
Supporters and rationale: Shana England, director of the Digital Equity Los Angeles Coalition and the Digital Equity Initiative at the California Community Foundation, said millions of Californians lost subsidized Internet when the ACP ended and told the committee “income level is the best predictor of whether a household has access to the fast and reliable Internet service we all need.” Adrian Sandoval of GPSN emphasized student and family harms, saying their surveys show cost remains the single largest barrier to home Internet for many families and that “47% of respondents identified free home Internet as one of their top three priorities.” The author argued the market has not filled the ACP gap and that state action is necessary to avoid leaving households behind.
Opposition concerns: Jeremy Crandall of CTIA, the wireless trade association, described the bill as an “artificial price mandate” and warned such approaches can harm consumers by reducing choices and discouraging investment. Tracy Ryan of the Rural Counties Association explained that small or rural network builders rely on higher margins or bond financing to cover debt service for last-mile builds; she told the committee that a $15 monthly cap would not be sustainable for many rural projects and could prevent networks from being built at all.
Committee discussion: Members pressed the author on exemptions for small ISPs and for communities with high build costs, on proxies for eligibility (which the committee analysis links to programs such as Medi‑Cal, CalFresh, free or reduced‑price school meals), and on whether federal funding alternatives might return. Assemblymember Bonta and others urged detailed worker and build‑out protections; the author repeatedly invited labor, county and consumer groups to put proposed language on the table.
Vote and next step: The committee moved to pass AB 353 as amended and referred it to appropriations for further review. (Committee roll-call for the motion is recorded in the transcript.)
Ending: Supporters said the bill will require further drafting on exemptions, eligibility proxies and small‑ISP protections; opponents said the state should avoid price mandates that could reduce investment in rural and less‑dense areas.
