Congress May Not Renew Low-Income Broadband Program Birthed During COVID

During peak pandemic, the FCC launched the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB program), giving lower income Americans a $50 ($75 for those in tribal lands) discount off of their broadband bill. Under the program, the government gave money to ISPs, which then doled out discounts to users if they qualified.

But (and I'm sure this will be a surprise to readers) reports are that big ISPs erected cumbersome barriers to actually getting the service, or worse, actively exploited the sign up process toforce struggling low-income applicants on to more expensive plansonce the initial contract ended. Very much in character.

The EBB was rebranded the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP)as part of the Infrastructure Bill (the payout to the general public was dropped to $30 a month). And, once again, not at all surprisingly, the FCC discovered that dozens" of U.S. broadband providers wereripping the program offto the tune of millions of dollars across Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

That said, the program was still a good thing for millions of people. Data routinely indicates that affordability is the biggest obstacle to broadband adoption, and $30 off their bill was a huge deal for many. Especially in tribal areas long neglected by the private sector and government alike.

Everybody's experiences with COVID home education and telecommuting briefly shined a bright spotlight on substandard U.S. broadband and policy issues. But with our attention on COVID waning, its impetus for reform on broadband access is as well. ACP money will run out soon, and the debate has begun as to whether Congress should renew the ACP program:

Nineteen million households haveenrolledin the government's broadband benefit system as of June, but that figure is well under theestimated 49 million eligible. The program and a predecessor initiative have suffered persistent abuses ... as telecom giants have induced price hikes, speed cuts, and fraud risks,"a Post investigation found.

Consumer groups and Democrats unsurprisingly want to renew the program. And why not; in a country that endlessly throws subsidies at a wide variety of industries (especially military) and billionaires for doing absolutely nothing, why not spend some cash on a program that (mostly) helped the poor. Republicans are generally split on whether the program should be extended.

There's some nuance here though. The problem remains that the program isn't actually fixing the underlying problem. U.S. broadband is expensive and spotty because both parties have historically allowed telecom giants to monopolize access and crush competition. The result of this monopolization isn't surprising: high prices, spotty service, slower speeds, and comically terrible customer service.

Enter the ACP, which basically throws billions of dollars at companies responsible for the very problem we're trying to fix so that they'll temporarily lower high prices they're directly responsible for. Yes, the end result still helps a low-income family struggling to get online, but it's important to understand you wouldn't need this kind of program if the two parties were willing to challenge monopoly power.

Democrats are often better than the GOP on telecom policy. But even they have a comical aversion to acknowledging that the real problem here is consolidated, concentrated monopoly power. Democratic FCC leaders will talk endlessly and ambiguously about their dedication to bridging the digital divide," but they're literally incapable of making public statements calling out the monopolies responsible for it.

So yes, I do think it makes sense to renew the program. As a country we spend a lot more money on significantly dumber ideas. But it would be lovely if that extension was paired with some base level realization that progress isn't actually being made unless you strike at the real root of the problem: telecom monopolies and the bipartisan corruption that protects them from competition.

Fewer monopolies, more competition, and competent regulatory oversight generally means lower prices, and no need for the ACP in the first place. But we're not really interested in cracking down on monopolies, government support for pro-competitive policies is limited at best, and industry continues to successfully defang telecom regulators and consumer protection standards year after year.