California began the year with a strong push to address digital inequality through a new legislative proposal—AB 353, also known as the California Affordable Home Internet Act. The bill aimed to guarantee affordable broadband access for low-income households, requiring major internet service providers (ISPs) in the state to offer internet plans with speeds of at least 100 Mbps download and 20 Mbps upload for $15 per month.
This proposal mirrored a similar initiative in New York and was expected to deliver nearly $100 million in annual savings to low-income residents, while placing only a minimal financial burden on large telecom companies.
The bill had the potential to significantly close the digital divide in California, especially for families struggling to afford reliable internet—a service that has become essential for work, school, and accessing public services.
Behind Closed Doors, a Shift in Priorities
Despite the bill’s promise, its core components were quietly altered during the legislative process. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, the bill’s sponsor, introduced a series of amendments that substantially weakened its impact. These changes, which critics say were made under pressure from telecom lobbyists, reduced the required internet speeds to 50 Mbps download and 10 Mbps upload, making the service less competitive in a modern digital economy.
Worse still, the amended bill stripped oversight mechanisms, removing mandates for ISPs to report progress or be held accountable for compliance. The revisions also limited the regulatory authority of the California Public Utilities Commission, effectively leaving enforcement of the bill to the discretion of the companies it was meant to regulate.
What started as a transformative proposal quickly became a watered-down version, no longer carrying the weight or guarantees it initially promised.
Federal Threats to State Broadband Policy
The weakening of AB 353 didn’t stop at the state level. Assemblymember Boerner has stated that officials in the Trump administration warned her office that enforcing such affordability requirements could result in California losing access to nearly $1.86 billion in broadband funding from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program.
These funds were part of a broader $42.5 billion allocation through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which aimed to expand broadband access nationwide. However, recent efforts to implement the law have been criticized for shifting away from its original goals. Under the direction of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)—now led by a former aide to Senator Ted Cruz—federal broadband policy has increasingly favored private industry over public interest.
Instead of supporting community-driven solutions or prioritizing affordability, the administration has reportedly favored projects that benefit corporate providers, including Elon Musk’s Starlink, a satellite internet provider that has received billions in subsidies despite service concerns like high latency and congestion.
A Larger Trend of Deregulation and Rollbacks
California’s challenges with AB 353 reflect a larger, troubling trend in U.S. telecommunications policy. Over the past year, several programs aimed at making internet more accessible and equitable have been eliminated or severely weakened.
Among them:
- The Affordable Connectivity Program, which provided a $30 monthly subsidy to help low-income families pay for broadband, has ended.
- Initiatives to expand free Wi-Fi access for students in rural communities have been shelved.
- The repeal of net neutrality protections has allowed ISPs to prioritize, throttle, or block certain content without government oversight.
- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has lost much of its authority to enforce telecom accountability.
- Efforts to address racial disparities in broadband infrastructure have been rolled back.
- Consumer protections related to internet privacy have been dismantled, leaving users more vulnerable to data collection and exploitation.
These changes have been presented as moves toward “efficiency” or fiscal responsibility, but many policy experts argue they primarily serve the interests of telecom monopolies, further marginalizing those who already face digital exclusion.
