Trump Admin Warns States They’ll Lose Billions In Broadband Grants If They Try To Make Broadband Affordable
from the empathy-is-not-allowed dept
The Trump administration is once again warning states that they risk losing billions of dollars in historic infrastructure bill grants — if they attempt to make the taxpayer-subsidized broadband actually affordable.
That’s the updated guidance coming out of the Trump National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is tasked with coordinating the looming $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) grant made possible by the 2021 infrastructure bill.
We’ve already noted how Republicans (who voted against this program repeatedly, then whined about it taking too long) have introduced massive new delays by redirecting billions in BEAD dollars away from local fiber ISPs and toward Elon Musk’s congested, expensive satellite broadband service, Starlink.
But Republicans were also incensed by the fact that the original BEAD program, as crafted by Congress, included provisions trying to ensure that ISPs that take taxpayer money at least make a fleeting effort to offer one tier of service that’s affordable to low-income Americans.
The updated NTIA guidance still includes language suggesting that big ISPs should provide a “lower cost” broadband tier, but it lets companies like AT&T and Comcast dictate what “low cost” actually means, rendering it effectively useless, according to Ars Technica:
“The Trump administration points to the latter language in its argument that ISPs alone must choose the price of the low-cost option. The new version of the BEAD FAQ says that states may not require specific rates for the low-cost service option (LCSO), even when required by state law.”
This is the Trump administration directly pandering to big shitty telecom giants like Comcast, who have bristled at the idea of being forced to make broadband affordable, even if it’s only to poor Americans. It’s also a roundabout way to pre-empt the handful of states that have been looking at new state laws requiring that U.S. telecom giants make broadband affordable to poor people.
States that balk at eliminating affordability requirements, or the requirement that they slather Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk with billions of dollars, risk missing out on billions of dollars in historic broadband subsidies. The punishments also will likely curtail state leaders from openly calling out how corrupt and buffoonish this all is, lest they also want to risk losing funds.
Republicans have taken a hatchet to broadband affordability programs across the board, including killing the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided a $30 broadband discount for low-income Americans — as well as killing a program that provided free Wi-Fi to rural school kids at no additional cost to taxpayers.
The Trump admin also illegally dismantled the Digital Equity Act, which was a bare-bones effort to stop race and class discrimination in broadband upgrades. And they’ve effectively destroyed what’s left of U.S. federal consumer protection and corporate oversight, ensuring that U.S. ISPs face zero meaningful penalties should they rip you off.
As with most everything the Trump administration does, corruptly pandering to big telecom is pretty far from any sort of “populism,” and only ensures that U.S. broadband — even if you’ve paid for it via your tax dollars — remains equal parts inferior and expensive.
Filed Under: affordable, bead, broadband, fcc, infrastructure bill, internet, telecom, trump


Comments on “Trump Admin Warns States They’ll Lose Billions In Broadband Grants If They Try To Make Broadband Affordable”
Solution get the money and then drop the hammer even harder on the ISPs
Remember states rights? About that…
Re:
States rights (when the term’s not being used for vile shit, as has been historically common) were negatively impacted when federal income tax was legalized. Courts have long ago ruled that it’s okay for the Feds to take money via income tax, and then give it back to the States with strings attached.
Broadband grants are only the latest example. States are dependent on federal law enforcement funding (and co-operation), highway funds, and various other things. And they have to go along with federally-dictated rules to get those things.
Trump Government:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
this content is very importent
Re:
Important or impotent? Either applies depending which side if the pro-wealthy/pro-equity fence you stand on.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Hand Out
The terms “low cost” or “affordable” are code words for “entitlement program”. Trump isn’t going to start up a new welfare benefit on his watch. Most importantly, the attempt at mandating ISPs offer a freebie will ensure that the folks who work for a living will pay to subsidize those who do not. He’s pretty smart for not saddling middle America with higher costs.
Re:
Oh okay.
So you are good with taxing the rich like trump who do NO work and have no produced value for the country and ending all corporate and rich person subsidies?
Re:
Billionaires do not work for a living, Koby.
Re:
Except for tariffs, inflation and nation debt interests, you’re perfectly right.
Pretty smart, Kody, indeed.
Re:
You’ve already had it pointed out to you that the ISPs received subsidies and grants for expanding broadband access and they pocketed the money and didn’t do shit. The handouts are always for the billionaires.
Why are you such a broken human being that you think poor people shouldn’t get help accessing a tool that can improve their lives and educate them? Hell better access can make them more productive for your corporate overlords. You’re not even good at being self-serving!
Re: Re:
Because he’s like the average Republican: He believes poverty is a moral failing that should be punished rather than a systemic/policy failing that should be corrected. If Donald Trump were to announce tomorrow that he would start executing homeless people and elderly people to “cut down on federal spending that keeps the useless alive”, Koby wouldn’t only cheer for it, he’d actively try to sign up for the job of killing “the useless”.
Re: Re: Re:
Slight correction – Koby wouldn’t actively sign up for the job; that would require him to actually do something instead of just spout words on the Internet. I’d bet he’s too lazy for that.
whats the point then?
I dont see the point of broadband grants if they arent allowed to make broadband affordable. What else could it legitimately be used for?
Re:
Lining the pockets of CEOs who are out of a job after the next merger?
Wait, isn’t it the legislature that controls the purse strings? My high school government class must have been wrong.