Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Industry Testimony topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industry witnesses tell Assembly competition and investment have driven broadband prices down; warn against targeted surcharges
Summary
At an Assembly informational hearing on broadband affordability, US Telecom and CTIA witnesses said real prices for common broadband plans have fallen and credited competition and massive private investment; they urged policymakers to remove regulatory barriers to deployment and cautioned that flat surcharges would disproportionately hit wireless consumers.
Industry witnesses told the California State Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee that competition and sustained infrastructure investment, not price regulation, have been the main drivers of lower broadband costs for many consumers. Lynn Follinsbee, vice president of strategic initiatives and partnerships at US Telecom, testified that "real prices for the most popular broadband plans ... fell 8.7% in just 1 year," and said gigabit prices also declined in recent years even as overall consumer inflation rose.
Follinsbee acknowledged California faces higher-than-average deployment costs and identified several causes: permitting delays, higher taxes, widespread copper theft and vandalism, and regulatory obligations that, in her words, force some providers to "run two networks" by maintaining legacy copper while building fiber. She testified US Telecom members spend "about $1,000,000,000 a year" maintaining outdated copper networks in California and said relieving those obligations could free capital for fiber deployment.
From the wireless side, Jeremy Crandell of CTIA emphasized similar trends for wireless service: "When you adjust for inflation, wireless is down 24%" over five years and "down 44%" over a decade in their figures. Crandell highlighted fixed wireless access as a competitive option that has reached millions of households and said private capital remains large (he cited roughly $29 billion in 2024 and about $220 billion since 2018 for wireless investment nationwide).
Both witnesses urged lawmakers to reduce regulatory friction that slows builds and raises costs—points they linked to siting rules, rights-of-way and permitting inefficiencies, and what they described as legacy carrier obligations. They also warned against broad, flat surcharges on wireless services. Crandell said a 2023 flat-rate surcharge "led to a 300% increase" in what certain wireless consumers pay, and warned such fees "disproportionately impact wireless consumers, especially low-income families."
Committee members pressed for specifics. Follinsbee pointed to CPUC proceedings addressing carrier obligations and urged alignment of state law with federal rules for small-cell siting; Crandell said about 35 states have moved to align state statutes with FCC deployment rules. Both witnesses proposed improving permitting predictability, reducing duplicate agency steps, and making dynamic pricing information more transparent and machine readable to help regulators and researchers track real consumer prices.
The industry testimony also addressed federal funding: witnesses said state access to federal BEAD funding (referred to in testimony as "BEED") and reforms to the Universal Service Fund could materially affect deployment and affordability. They urged that contribution reform and distribution changes at the federal level be designed to broaden the funding base in ways that do not unduly increase costs for vulnerable consumers.
The committee did not take any votes. Lawmakers asked staff to follow up on permitting, the CPUC's carrier-obligation proceedings and data-transparency proposals raised by witnesses.
