Press Struggles To Explain How The GOP Killed A Popular Broadband Discount Program, Driving Millions Of Poor Americans Off The Internet
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
The FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), part of the 2021 infrastructure bill, provided 23+ million low-income households a $30 broadband discount every month. But the roughly 60 million Americans benefiting from the program are now facing much higher broadband bills because key Republicans — who routinely dole out billions of dollars on far dumber fare — refused to fund a $4-$7 billion extension.
There were several last ditch efforts to fund the program but none were successful, thanks largely to Trump loyalist and current House Speaker Mike Johnson, who refused to let any of those funding efforts get close to a vote.
The GOP killed this popular program. Yet in two different stories this week, both CNET and the Associated Press fail to clearly communicate that to readers. At CNET, the program simply “ran out of money”:
In May, the $14.2 billion program officially ran out of money, leaving Jackson and 23 million households like hers with internet bills that were $30 to $75 higher than the month before.
Over at the Associated Press, the program vaguely died because “Congress” didn’t fund it:
The Affordable Connectivity Program, part of a broader effort pushed by the administration to bring affordable internet to every home and business in the country, was not renewed by Congress and ran out of funding earlier this year.
The GOP killed this program. The GOP alone. The cuts heavily harm the GOP’s own constituents. Nearly half of the folks on the ACP program rolls were military families. Countless ACP participants live in Southern states where broadband access is spotty and expensive thanks to the GOP’s own policies.
Republicans killed a popular program heavily used by Republicans and only made necessary in the first place due to failed Republican telecom policies. They killed it because they didn’t want Democrats and Biden to enjoy credit for a popular program during an election season.
But neither outlet wants to make the GOP’s fault clear to readers lest they somehow offend Republican readers, sources, event sponsors, or advertisers. It’s part of a general fecklessness that has expanded across the mainstream ad-based U.S. press, and it results in feckless coverage where the GOP never has to truly own its broadly unpopular policy decisions.
The GOP insists they opposed the program because it was wasteful. But the same party has routinely overseen disastrous subsidy programs (like the FCC’s Rural Deployment Opportunity Fund) that set large piles of money on fire due to foundational incompetence. And it’s the same party that routinely slathers big telecoms with tax cuts (AT&T got an estimated $42 billion tax break from Trump for doing nothing).
U.S. broadband is so expensive in the first place because the GOP broadly supports and encourages widespread telecom monopolization at the hands of giants like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. And broadly supports the widespread defanging and defunding of state and federal oversight of telecoms. And rubber stamps endless consolidating mergers, causing widespread layoffs and reduced competition.
The one-two punch of muted competition and oversight ends badly for everyone, yet it’s context that neither outlet thought it was important for readers to understand when talking about expensive U.S. broadband. While it’s nice the two outlets deemed the story worthy of covering, they’re not really properly attributing blame for why the program died or why it was needed in the first place.
You wouldn’t need the ACP if the GOP hadn’t spent the last thirty years opposing every effort to drive competition into highly monopolized markets, whether at the hands of smaller upstarts or community owned broadband networks (which, if you forgot, the GOP tried to ban during a health emergency).
States and municipalities are now scrambling to find stopgap solutions so that millions of low income Americans don’t risk getting kicked off the Internet. Several states are trying to leverage both ARPA and BEAD infrastructure grants (both of which Republicans also opposed) to try to ensure internet access remains affordable, with mixed results.
Democrats certainly have their faults on telecom policy. Their solutions are often decorative, and corrupt Democrats like Joe Manchin help ensure that real telecom and media reformers can’t even get posts at the FCC. But substandard U.S. broadband is primarily the direct result of monopoly-coddling, mindlessly deregulatory GOP policies the party mysteriously, routinely, never has to actually take ownership of.
The press, even the well-intentioned outlets trying to cover stories like this for the right reasons, is routinely complicit. Again, the ACP was a stopgap program created to address problems caused by failed Republican telecom policies. The popular program was widely used by Republicans then killed by Republicans exclusively as an act of cruel and mindless election season politics.
You’d be hard pressed to draw those factual conclusions from any U.S. press coverage.
Filed Under: ACP, affordable, Affordable Connectivity Program, broadband, fcc, gop, high speed internet, telecom


Comments on “Press Struggles To Explain How The GOP Killed A Popular Broadband Discount Program, Driving Millions Of Poor Americans Off The Internet”
‘The Press’ struggles, in part, due to their conflict of interest. The corporate overlords want to project a blue sky imaginary world where everything is great and they do not like the real world messing it up.
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
‘The Press’ struggles, in part, due to their conflict of interest. The corporate overlords want to project a blue sky imaginary world where everything is great and they do not like the real world messing it up.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Bottomless Money Pit
Temporary programs are temporary, otherwise you create a permanent entitlement. If you believe that there is a problem, push for a solution to the root of the problem, rather than advocating for endless band-aids.
You already see the problems and crushing debt created by the college loan programs. Don’t repeat that mistake with another sector of the economy.
Re:
Nice try.
Re:
Getting rid of the temporary solution without having enacted a permanent one isn’t really the sign of exceptional intelligence.
"Fairness" != "calling out BS"
The press is bending over backwards to not appear biased in their reporting, even if what they’re reporting on is politically-motivated bovine waste and likely to cause problems to the people they’re supposedly informing.
Unbiased reporting is expected, but willingness to speak truth to power when necessary is also expected as a core value of the Fourth Estate. Otherwise you may as well be Fawx News and simply pander to whatever faction best pays the advertising bills.
“Struggle”. What a misleading fucking word in this context.
Why help their base have a chance to read something negative about their greedy leadership and believe it? Better to get them away from the information highway.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Fix Not Fund
We’ve seen how throwing more and more money at the college system has failed to solve the affordability of higher education, and has only saddled students with crippling debt. Don’t create a new entitlement around broadband. If you think that there’s a problem, then fix the root of it, rather than wasting and endless amount of money with no solution in sight.
Re:
“throwing more and more money at the college system has failed to solve the affordability of higher education”
The rising cost of an education in the US is mainly due to the decrease in funding at the federal and state levels since the Reagan administration. Many politicians are not trying to solve the affordability of a higher education, they are trying to get rid of education .. at their own peril but they do not see it.
“saddled students with crippling debt”
The student loan programs share the blame in a lot of the present situation. Charging seven percent interest in a loan that must be paid back, therefore little risk, is quite greedy.
” If you think that there’s a problem, then fix the root of it, rather than wasting and endless amount of money with no solution in sight.”
Ok, employers must pay a living wage or go out of business, no more housing and food handouts to subsidize the greedy business.
Re: Re:
The rising cost of higher education is directly linked to federally-subsidized student borrowing and the shameless expansion by universities of their bloated, useless administrations!
Wasteful Wonderland
So that means no more subsidizing Telecom, right?
Comcast Cares is $10 a month.
With Spectrum, they extended the $30 dollar plan to people formerly subsidized by the ACP so subscribers wouldn’t shop around. So, the plan in a way still works, because trying to get $30 internet outside of a promotional period isn’t easy.
Re:
That might only be within select markets possibly.
I had Spectrum when ACP was active. For me, the low-income plan was $29.99 a month at the time for 30Mb/s service. The ACP made my internet completely free.
After the ACP ended, I shut my service off with them, due to a host of other issues I experienced.
I just checked and the current lowest price service in my area is $49.99/month for the same 30Mb/s down plan.
Well at least I'm not missing out not signing up to such stellar 'news'
Uh, maybe practice what you preach?
They aren’t ‘struggling’ to explain why the program died and who killed it, they are refusing to accurately assign blame, almost certainly because they’re too cowardly to just come out and say ‘the GOP killed it’ lest they get accused of being ‘fake news’ or ‘partisan’ again.
Telecom subsidies
I find it laughable that we would think that tax cuts for telecom companies are any more of a subsidy than a $30 dollar per month/subscriber payment from the government to the telecom. It’s just another license to steal.
Re:
Yup, giving money to poor people so they can use/have service from utilities is something that is needed in society.
Now, who pays them?
Should it be an employer, taxpayer, charity? I think the more efficient method is for the employer to pay employees enough to survive and return the next day to work again. If the business is unable to do this, then perhaps said business is not viable.
Re: Re:
That sentiment might fly if we lived in a world with infinite resources.
Anything basic to citizens (internet is basic now, much like electricity and indoor plumbing once wasn’t but now is) should be covered by tax payers.
Mail, electricity, education, healthcare, I’m sure you can fill in the others.
No this isn’t bleeding heart liberal talk. This is “Hey maybe it would be far less likely for someone to break into my house and steal shit.” If the people in general had all their basic needs and quality of life maintained.
Re: Re: Re:
“That sentiment might fly if we lived in a world with infinite resources.”
I don’t understand why infinite resources are required for a business to be self sufficient. Now if there were a national emergency, like a pandemic, then it makes sense for a business to receive assistance in their efforts to ease the situation – otherwise no. If a business is in need of employees, then said business is responsible for paying same enough to live within commuting distance. Why should the tax payer be helping some business generate profit? Does the tax payer get a cut of the action? I think not.
Numbers?
23 million.
300 million population
How many households? 23 million with 2-4+ in each home? Lets make it 50 million affected.
50 million People affected, Which is abit OVER 15% of the Populace affected.
And idiots dont see it?
Re:
That 15% are useless and we’d be better off without them.
Re: Re:
Wrong percent on the wrong end of the spectrum.
Those people end up in such positions exactly by the same attitude you displaytoward them after they are in the worse position.
Millions of farmers and military folks say, “Fuck you.”
Re: Re:
You’re off by 14%
Respectfully, you have no clue what you are talking about. Leader Schumer and Senator Cantwell are to blame for not getting it past the Senate.
Re:
Oh? So tell us, why couldn’t they get it past the senate? Was their mind-control on the fritz? Didn’t they bribe enough senators?
Why should the blame be placed on them and not those who voted against?
Re:
Ah republicans, never to blame for anything they do…
Well, for what it’s worth, Manchin has no chance of being re-elected – his days were numbered the instant Jim Justice began running for Manchin’s senate seat. Manchin also left the Democrats once that was obvious, and both he and Sinema are poised to lose all relevance along with their seats. He did briefly mull over the idea of challenging Kamala Harris at the DNC, but he quickly decided not to (likely because she’d completely destroy him and some important people also likely took him aside and told him to drop the idea or else).
good luck pretzels~
this is much like CNN trying to “LOOK” unbiased when doing that fact checking during the presidential conventions. Remember when reporters collected facts and provided just that information without the BS commentary?! A program subsidizing low income consumers resulted in many consumers not having access depending on whether the internet service providers provided a comparable service without the subsidy. See, takes less than a paragraph. The sad part is you can’t sell ads based on a one paragraph reporting of the facts or lure people here with click bait…
1