Committee backs SB 716 to extend state lifeline subsidy to home broadband for low-income households

Sen. Durazosponsored SB 716, designed to let eligible low-income households apply the state lifeline subsidy to home broadband service, passed out of the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee Thursday and was referred to the Appropriations Committee after amendments and extensive stakeholder discussion.

Sen. Durazo told the committee the bill would create a home Internet lifeline program to help families afford reliable home service, with the PUC directed to adopt implementing rules by July 1, 2027. "This bill creates the home Internet lifeline program for low income families," Durazo said, citing the lapse of the federal Affordable Connectivity Program and the states $6 billion infrastructure investment as reasons affordability remains the barrier to connection.

Under the committees amended language, participation by internet service providers is voluntary; participating providers must offer at least one plan at or below $30 with speeds sufficient for common household uses. The bill caps the surcharge to fund the program at the highest rate charged over the past four years (60 cents per access line under prior metrics that the committee retained in amendment language), and requires fiscal reporting to the Legislature; the bill also includes a sunset date of Jan. 1, 2032.

Retired state Sen. Richard Polanco and Trish Kelly of Valley Vision, who appeared with the author, described the bill as a continuity measure after the federal programs expiration and as a targeted affordability tool. "Nearly one in three families in California can't count on reliable home Internet for kids to do schoolwork," Sen. Durazo said in opening remarks, and witnesses emphasized the program would be focused on households for whom affordability, not infrastructure, is the principal barrier.

Opponents, including trade associations for wireless and broadband providers, raised concerns about the bills proposed funding mechanism and said the measure would place a disproportionate surcharge burden on wireless consumers. Jonathan Aronbo of CTIA said the rollout risks increasing wireless customers' surcharges and urged the Legislature to broaden the contribution base before expanding benefits. Several industry witnesses asked for additional technical clarifications; the author and sponsors accepted committee amendments and said they would continue to work with carriers and stakeholders.

Committee members asked whether the contribution mechanism and surcharge cap would be equitable and noted the program is voluntary for ISPs, which affects participation and program reach. Sunny McPeek of the California Emerging Technology Fund and other sponsors said the bill includes a capped surcharge and reporting requirements intended to limit consumer impact and provide oversight. "There is a cap on the surcharge," McPeek said in response to questions about cost containment.

The committee recorded SB 716 as due-passed as amended and referred to Appropriations. The clerk reported a committee tally on the floor progression as 7 ayes, 1 no; the author and sponsors said they will continue stakeholder negotiations to refine program details, encourage provider participation, and ensure the PUC implementation design meets the bills affordability goals.

Looking ahead: Supporters asked the PUC to design accessible enrollment and to report to the Legislature on fiscal impacts and participation; opponents pressed for broader contribution reforms so the program is not funded disproportionately by wireless customers.