An Effort To Fund an Internet Subsidy Program Just Got Thwarted Again (theverge.com) 18
Bipartisan agreement on government internet subsidies seems unlikely as Democrats and Republicans propose conflicting bills to reauthorize the FCC's spectrum auctions. The Democratic bill aims to fund the now-defunct Affordable Connectivity Program, while the Republican version does not. "While some Republicans supported earlier efforts to extend the subsidy program, those efforts did not go through in time to keep it from ending," notes The Verge. From the report: The Senate Commerce Committee canceled a Tuesday morning markup meeting in which it was set to consider the Spectrum and National Security Act, led by committee chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA). When she introduced it in April, Cantwell said the bill would provide $7 billion to continue funding the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), the pandemic-era internet subsidy for low-income Americans that officially ran out of money and ended at the end of May. The main purpose of the bill is to reauthorize the Federal Communications Commission's authority to run auctions for spectrum. The proceeds from spectrum auctions are often used to fund other programs. In addition to the ACP, Cantwell's bill would also fund programs including incentives for domestic chip manufacturing and a program that seeks to replace telecommunications systems that have been deemed national security concerns. The markup was already postponed several times before.
Cantwell blamed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, for standing in the way of the legislation. "We had a chance to secure affordable broadband for millions of Americans, but Senator Cruz said 'no,'" Cantwell said in a statement late Monday. "He said 'no' to securing a lifeline for millions of Americans who rely on the Affordable Connectivity Program to speak to their doctors, do their homework, connect to their jobs, and stay in touch with loved ones -- including more than one million Texas families." In remarks on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Cantwell said her Republican colleagues on the committee offered amendments to limit the ACP funding in the bill. She said the ACP shouldn't be a partisan issue and stressed the wide range of Americans who've relied on the program for high-speed connections, including elderly people living on fixed incomes and many military families. "I hope my colleagues will stop with obstructing and get back to negotiating on important legislation that will deliver these national security priorities and help Americans continue to have access to something as essential as affordable broadband," she said.
Cruz has his own spectrum legislation with Sen. John Thune (R-SD) that would reauthorize the FCC's spectrum auction authority, with a focus on expanding commercial access to mid-band spectrum, commonly used for 5G. But it doesn't have the same ACP funding mechanism. Some large telecom industry players prefer Cruz's bill, in part because it allows for exclusive licensing. Wireless communications trade group CTIA's SVP of government affairs, Kelly Cole, told Fierce Network that the Cruz bill "is a better approach because it follows the historical precedent set by prior bipartisan legislation to extend the FCC's auction authority." But other tech groups like the Internet Technology Industry Council (ITI), which represents companies including Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta, support Cantwell's bill, in part because of the programs it seeks to fund.
Cantwell blamed Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, for standing in the way of the legislation. "We had a chance to secure affordable broadband for millions of Americans, but Senator Cruz said 'no,'" Cantwell said in a statement late Monday. "He said 'no' to securing a lifeline for millions of Americans who rely on the Affordable Connectivity Program to speak to their doctors, do their homework, connect to their jobs, and stay in touch with loved ones -- including more than one million Texas families." In remarks on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Cantwell said her Republican colleagues on the committee offered amendments to limit the ACP funding in the bill. She said the ACP shouldn't be a partisan issue and stressed the wide range of Americans who've relied on the program for high-speed connections, including elderly people living on fixed incomes and many military families. "I hope my colleagues will stop with obstructing and get back to negotiating on important legislation that will deliver these national security priorities and help Americans continue to have access to something as essential as affordable broadband," she said.
Cruz has his own spectrum legislation with Sen. John Thune (R-SD) that would reauthorize the FCC's spectrum auction authority, with a focus on expanding commercial access to mid-band spectrum, commonly used for 5G. But it doesn't have the same ACP funding mechanism. Some large telecom industry players prefer Cruz's bill, in part because it allows for exclusive licensing. Wireless communications trade group CTIA's SVP of government affairs, Kelly Cole, told Fierce Network that the Cruz bill "is a better approach because it follows the historical precedent set by prior bipartisan legislation to extend the FCC's auction authority." But other tech groups like the Internet Technology Industry Council (ITI), which represents companies including Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta, support Cantwell's bill, in part because of the programs it seeks to fund.
Cruz (Score:4, Funny)
Just tell Ted that the subsidy is for Israeli full citizens' broadband and the $7B will sail right through.
Re: (Score:2)
ACP has not connected a single person (Score:2, Insightful)
The ACP has collected funds and did not connect a single customer. It was a handout to ISPs, they did not expand the coverage, so why pump in even more money.
I just got an announcement from Spectrum about it as well, they announced their ACP funded program for $49.99 is ending and out of the goodness of their heart, they are continuing to maintain the cost at $49.99. A quick look on their website: $29.99 (I pay $39.99 for their next level).
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what kind of shenanigans Spectrum is pulling in your market, but here the cheapest plan they offer is $50/mo and it goes up by another $10/mo after the promotional rate runs out.
I'm planning on switching to T-Mobile when my promotional rate runs out, for as long as it takes to be considered a "new" customer (T-Mobile's home internet service really isn't all that great for a myriad of reasons I'd rather not get into). 100mbit for $60/mo is a damn rip-off.
Re:ACP has not connected a single person (Score:4, Insightful)
You would really need to push though. When I first got it, I explicitly asked for their cheapest plan and got quoted something at 300 Mbps for $50-$60. It took several rounds of, "If that's the cheapest then why does it say something different on the website?" to get the plan that I wanted. Now that it's no longer advertised, it will be more difficult.
This, by the way, is the strongest support for a Title 2 classification for ISPs that I can think of. The right way to deal with a company this duplicitous is to say, "Fuck you then." and walk away. You really just shouldn't do business with someone like this. But, without the line sharing that comes with a Title 2 classification we're stuck with these regional monopolies.
Re:ACP has not connected a single person (Score:4, Informative)
The ACP has collected funds and did not connect a single customer. It was a handout to ISPs, they did not expand the coverage, so why pump in even more money.
Not sure what you're on about, this is about affordability, not expansion. According to the Congressional Research Service (operates within the Library of Congress) report, The End of the Affordable Connectivity Program [congress.gov], as of the last full-funded month of April 2024, 23 million U.S. households received ACP support. These subsidies affect low-income and veteran households -- document has definitions and reimbursement rates for different consumers and devices.
[The ACP] provides a subsidy toward monthly internet access payments for most households that earn up to 200% of federal poverty guidelines. The subsidy is $30 per household and $75 per household on tribal lands. ACP also provides a one-time subsidy of up to $100 toward the purchase of a connected device.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you're on about, this is about affordability, not expansion. According to the Congressional Research Service (operates within the Library of Congress) report, The End of the Affordable Connectivity Program [congress.gov], as of the last full-funded month of April 2024, 23 million U.S. households received ACP support. These subsidies affect low-income and veteran households -- document has definitions and reimbursement rates for different consumers and devices.
So let's see, 23 million households, 12 months in a year, and $30/month - that works out to, what, $8.28 Billion/year, so the Democrats are offering less than 12 months of funding? Or is there an issue with your numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Spectrum is misusing the program.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure". If you replace a previous program called the "Emergency Broadband Program" and define all the connections of that program as not being "new connections". Then when you're done with that also play statistical jujitsu to "correct" for all the connections that should be expected over the time period. After that you can totally say that you connected nobody with a straight face. </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I think what you meant to say is that now Cruz can count the "contributions" to him for the companies supporting his piece of shit legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
"Plop."
How many times do you announce the birth of a Republican?
Three: "Going once, going twice, sold!"
Why not just rename Congress the Sejm... (Score:2)
.. and be done with it? Specifically the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Sejm, since Congress is about as effective as it was.
The Commonwealth Sejm had a measure called the liberum veto whereby anyone could veto anything they wanted for any reason they felt like, leading to more or less complete paralysis of the government. In particular foreign powers often influenced members of the Sejm to create this paralysis, although in the US they seem to be quite happy to do it to themselves without any need for f
The best thing about US politics... (Score:2)
Spectrum and National Security Act
Hammering 2 barely related items into one bill and then fighting about the wrong piece...
It's essentially legislation by failure. If it passes, that's a rationality failure which will cost the populace plenty - especially essential freedoms.
If it fails to pass, that was the plan all along so that's a win.
They should sell tickets
Ted Cruz says: "See, the thing is..." (Score:2, Troll)