Studies consistently show that the primary reason millions of households do not have home Internet service boils down to affordability.

Research by EducationSuperHighway indicates that of the estimated 28.2 million households in the U.S. that do not have high-speed Internet service, 18 million of those households (home to 48 million Americans) are not online because the cost of service is simply too expensive.

But now, thanks to a recently published study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, broadband affordability advocates may be able to more accurately measure the elusive nature of affordable broadband costs.

The study also examines how to better pinpoint contributing factors like the state of local infrastructure and how lower-performing broadband access technologies powerfully influence low-income households' decision to sometimes choose cellular service-only over home Internet service.

Image

“Broadband Affordability: Assessing the Cost of Broadband for Low-and-Moderate Income Communities in Cities” provides a research-driven lens on how to measure broadband affordability neighborhood by neighborhood, city to city.

“While national and state-level analyses have helped highlight the digital divide,” the study’s author Ambika Nair writes, “measures of broadband affordability at the community level are limited.”

*This is the second installment of an ongoing series we are calling Connected Complex looks at how states and local communities are working to address the often complex challenges involved in bringing high-speed Internet access to multi-dwelling units.

California lawmakers approved new legislation letting renters opt out of bulk-billing arrangements that force them to pay for Internet service from a specific provider. Lawmakers say they didn’t ban the practice for fear of undermining some of the more beneficial aspects of bulk billing, which can make deployments more financially tenable for smaller providers.

Starting January 1, AB1414 requires that landlords “allow the tenant to opt out of paying for any subscription from a third-party Internet service provider, such as through a bulk-billing arrangement, to provide service for wired Internet, cellular, or satellite service that is offered in connection with the tenancy."

Image

The new law states that if landlords prevent tenants from opting out of such arrangements, tenants "may deduct the cost of the subscription to the third-party Internet service provider from the rent." Landlords are also prohibited from any sort of retaliation.

AB1414 passed the California state Senate in a 30–7 vote a month ago, and was signed into law by California Governor Gavin Newsom last week.

The Trump FCC has voted to kill two different programs that helped bring free Wi-Fi to school kids in underserved poor and rural U.S. communities.

It’s the latest casualty of an administration that has been taking a hatchet to FCC consumer protection and affordability initiatives, many of which were developed over decades – with popular bipartisan support.

The FCC under Brendan Carr on September 30 voted 2-1 to kill the programs, with Republican Olivia Trusty voting with Carr and Democrat Anna Gomez dissenting.

In 2023, the previous FCC expanded the agency’s Universal Service Fund's E-Rate program to help fund free Wi-Fi service on school buses. In 2024, the Biden FCC further expanded the program to help fund schools and libraries looking to lend out Wi-Fi hotspots and services that could be used off-premises by school kids that lacked affordable home broadband.

Both efforts were lauded for bridging the “homework gap,” making it easier and more affordable for kids in disconnected areas to keep up with homework. The expansions incurred no additional costs to taxpayers, leveraging existing USF funding. E-Rate spends about $2 billion annually and has a funding cap of roughly $5 billion.

Both Texas Senator Ted Cruz and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr spent most of 2025 trying to eliminate the programs. At one point, Cruz claimed, falsely, that the program was “censoring kids’ exposure to conservative viewpoints.” Carr, meanwhile, had tried to suggest the program created risks for kids due to unsupervised Internet use.

Recent Trump administration changes to a massive federal broadband grant program are lowering standards for broadband access, shifting the focus away from affordability and equity, and potentially redirecting billions of dollars away from future-proof fiber networks toward slower, more expensive satellite options that don’t seem likely to fix U.S. broadband woes.

But states, worried about losing an historic round of broadband grants, may be too intimidated to be up front about the potential downside of changes the Trump administration calls “the benefit of the bargain.”  

That’s the early story coming out of states like Tennessee, Colorado, and Texas, where state leaders are being forced to dramatically revamp billions of dollars in Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant planning.

In all three states the changes have introduced new delays and lowered last mile quality control standards. But an early look at the revamped bidding process in all three states shows that billions of dollars are likely being redirected away from locally-owned fiber networks to billionaire-owned low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite broadband options insufficient to the task.

For decades U.S. broadband policymaking has been plagued by inaccurate and badly-managed data that has significantly harmed efforts to not just track U.S. broadband deployment, but ensure that billions in taxpayer dollars are being wisely spent to address the problem.

From inaccurate broadband mapping data and an over-reliability on industry-provided coverage claims, to inconsistent broadband definitions and patchwork federal oversight, a new study by the Pew Charitable Trusts examined decades of U.S. broadband policy, and data analysis and found plenty of room for improvement.

Image

According to a 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, there have been 133 programs across 15 federal agencies supporting and funding U.S. broadband deployment efforts, propped up by more than $44 billion in taxpayer dollars from 2015 to 2020 alone.

ILSR studies have historically shown those funds haven’t always been spent wisely; often being dumped into the laps of the very same regional telecom monopolies whose attacks on competition and government oversight resulted in substandard access in the first place.

There’s billions more waiting in the wings: as part of the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), $25 billion was specifically earmarked for broadband expansion.