FCC ends high-speed internet subsidies as funds expire

[Daniel Sims]

What just happened? The Affordable Connectivity Program has helped millions of low-income families in the US receive internet service at reduced prices since 2022. However, Congress only funded the program once, and the funding expired this month despite pleas from President Biden and the FCC for additional support. Affected customers should research subsidies and other options still available in their area.

The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) ended on Saturday after Congress failed to renew funding. Over 20 million low-income Americans had depended on the program to lower their internet bills for two and a half years.

The program offered participants internet service discounts of up to $30 per month (or $75 in tribal areas) and enjoyed bipartisan support. Some participating ISPs either lowered their basic service tiers to $30 a month or increased the speeds of existing affordable plans. The ultimate aim was to make internet access available for no more than $30 a month at 100Mbps, which the FCC recently defined as the minimum classification of broadband.

However, Republican members of Congress later criticized the program, claiming many participating households already had internet service. The FCC disputed these claims, stating in a recent letter that 77 percent of the 23 million households receiving ACP funds would need to either reduce or cut service after losing assistance.

In May 2024, the final month of funding, the credit was reduced to $14 per month. The Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act, introduced in January with bipartisan support, aims to provide additional funding for the ACP but would not support the program permanently.

According to the FCC, ending the ACP could increase the financial strain on the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. This $42 billion effort is a component of the Biden administration's infrastructure initiative aimed at making internet service more accessible, particularly in rural areas.

The White House noted that some ISPs covering 10 million eligible households are maintaining low-cost offers voluntarily through the end of 2024. The telecoms providing discounts to eligible new and existing subscribers are:

• Allo Fiber
• Altafiber (and Hawaiian Telcom)
• Astound Broadband
• AT&T
• Comcast
• Cox
• IdeaTek
• Mediacom
• MLGC
• Optimum
• Spectrum (Charter Communications)
• Starry
• Verizon
• Vermont Telephone Company

Other ISPs offering affordable options or subsidies include Xfinity, Human-I-T, and NetZero. Additionally, some households qualify for Lifeline, a permanently funded federal program providing a $9.25 monthly credit.

Permalink to story:

FCC ends high-speed internet subsidies as funds expire

 

[Uncle Al]

Considering the amount of unwanted advertisements forced on the users IP access should be free OR billed back to the advertisers.

 

[CBTex]

Maybe they would have money for programs for Americans if we didn't send untold billions to Ukraine, Gaza and Israel so people can kill each other.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

A better solution would have been spending the money putting fiber out to rural areas. That would make it financially viable to provide affordable internet to those areas without needing to fund subsidies for users forever.

 

[Dimitrios]

I don't trust government assistance when it comes to phones and services. My mom had a stroke a few years back and caved in recently to get a free phone and a cheap monthly plan. She tried using her cell phone number to setup up an Amazon account( she wanted a bird bath water fountain) It wouldn't allow her. My brother and I found a way and the account at Amazon was linked to a big time drug dealer in Bridgeport CT, NYC and I think it was Mexico and the dude ordered dirt bike parts, bolt cutters and a few other sketchy stuff. I believe that illegal passed away from looking up his name. Amazon got very funny when I backtracked everything and it seemed they were hiding something. They told us to erase his account and start a new one lol!

 

[Hexic]

Maybe they would have money for programs for Americans if we didn't send untold billions to Ukraine, Gaza and Israel so people can kill each other.

Pertaining to Ukraine - if we're planning on throwing our national security interests out of the window, this makes perfect sense!

 

[Dimitrios]

Pertaining to Ukraine - if we're planning on throwing our national security interests out of the window, this makes perfect sense!

I advise you to research into where most of the money is really going. Here's a tip don't watch MSM media and use archive.org I recommend searching bio labs, 3 yachts, Bama/Lugar/Nuland, Pentagon, LGB, cancelled elections, church burning, locals setting off a grenade in a city meeting after finding out officials were pocketing money etc.

 

[toooooot]

I saw those ads on Comcast and zipply. Well, from 20-30 to 40-60. Meanwhile, the cheapest plans from Companies like Comcast keep growing as well.
The one positive I can see is those mobile internet plans. They cost less and will probably work for people who do not need a lot of data.

 

[axiomatic13]

Maybe they would have money for programs for Americans if we didn't send untold billions to Ukraine, Gaza and Israel so people can kill each other.

You realize that we're not really sending money, right?

 

[gamerk2]

A better solution would have been spending the money putting fiber out to rural areas. That would make it financially viable to provide affordable internet to those areas without needing to fund subsidies for users forever.

Ding; why pay private industry to lay down hardware that's already ten years obsolete, when we can put fiber everywhere for a fraction of the total cost?

Oh right, "Capitalism".

 

[gamerk2]

Maybe they would have money for programs for Americans if we didn't send untold billions to Ukraine, Gaza and Israel so people can kill each other.

Look at how much defense spending we use, every single year, since the Cold War started, to protect against Russia.

Now look how much we're spending to literally *wreck* their military for the next decade plus.

Now ask: Which is the better financial investment?

And that's *before* we consider the long-term savings of learning things like "The Abrams might not be suited for the 21st century battlefield" or "static artillery pieces get blown up two minutes after firing; we need to invest in mobile artillery instead".

As an aside: Russia's war in Ukraine is different then most of the conflicts the US meddles in (often to its long-term detriment). This isn't some internal conflict between Government and anti-government forces, this is an invasion of a country by an external power. If there's a cause the US *should* be spending on, *this* is it.

 

[opckieran]

Ding; why pay private industry to lay down hardware that's already ten years obsolete, when we can put fiber everywhere for a fraction of the total cost?

Oh right, "Capitalism".

This industry is one of the most entwined with government and complained about (there’s an enormous positive correlation there if you hadn’t noticed *wink wink*) and sheeple still call it capitalism.

 

[CBTex]

You realize that we're not really sending money, right? View attachment 89673

Is this supposed to make us feel better? If I take out a loan in the name of my children and grandchildren, buy a bunch of stuff, then send it to some foreign land to be used up and destroyed, should they be happier that I bought the stuff locally than just sending cash?

"Hey kids, feel good about this debt because some LOCAL rich defense contractor got even richer."

 

[Endymio]

You realize that we're not really sending money [to Ukraine], right?

Where did you hear such misinformation? More than half the aid sent is in the form of cash, including helping to pay the pensions for retired Ukrainian government workers.

Figures from Jan 2022-July 2023:

Budget support for the Ukraine government: $26.4B
Humanitarian aid to Ukraine: $3.9B
Grants to purchase weapons and equipment: $4.7B
Security Assistance: $18.3B

Finally, we reach the "munitions and tactical weapons" of your chart: $23.5B

Note these figures as of today are all nearly double these amounts from mid-2023.

How much aid the U.S. has sent to Ukraine, in 6 charts

Six graphics illustrate the extraordinary level of support the United States has provided Ukraine in its war against Russian invaders.

www.pbs.org

 

[Endymio]

Look at how much defense spending we use, every single year, since the Cold War started, to protect against Russia.

Now look how much we're spending to literally *wreck* their military for the next decade plus.

Utter nonsense. Since the war began, Russia's military has expanded from 1.02M troops to over 1.3M, and, after more than 35 years of declining budgets, their military is again seeing huge budget increases. More importantly, both they (and indirectly, China) have received invaluable knowledge of and experience with the US's most advanced weapons systems and tactics -- and in some cases, actual copies of those weapons.

Some comments by Gen. Chris Cavoli, head of US European Command:

"“The army is actually now larger — by 15 percent — than it was when it invaded Ukraine...

The four-star general told senators that Russia has also replenished its heavy tank losses on the battlefield and now operates as many tanks in Ukraine as it did during the beginning of the full conflict....Russia is now expected to produce more ammunition than all 32 NATO allies combined per year..."

Cavoli's final admission is the most telling:

“Perhaps most concerning, the Russian military in the past year has shown an accelerating ability to learn and adapt to battlefield challenges both tactically and technologically,” he said, “and has become a learning organization that little resembles the chaotic force that invaded Ukraine two years ago.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/11/christopher-cavoli-russian-military-losses-00151718

 

[VaRmeNsI]

The West only cares about milking Ukraine as long as possible to boost defence stocks, afterwards it will be left a barren wasteland and the libtards will move on to something else.

 

[gamerk2]

Utter nonsense. Since the war began, Russia's military has expanded from 1.02M troops to over 1.3M, and, after more than 35 years of declining budgets, their military is again seeing huge budget increases. More importantly, both they (and indirectly, China) have received invaluable knowledge of and experience with the US's most advanced weapons systems and tactics -- and in some cases, actual copies of those weapons.

Some comments by Gen. Chris Cavoli, head of US European Command:

"“The army is actually now larger — by 15 percent — than it was when it invaded Ukraine...

The four-star general told senators that Russia has also replenished its heavy tank losses on the battlefield and now operates as many tanks in Ukraine as it did during the beginning of the full conflict....Russia is now expected to produce more ammunition than all 32 NATO allies combined per year..."

Cavoli's final admission is the most telling:

“Perhaps most concerning, the Russian military in the past year has shown an accelerating ability to learn and adapt to battlefield challenges both tactically and technologically,” he said, “and has become a learning organization that little resembles the chaotic force that invaded Ukraine two years ago.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/11/christopher-cavoli-russian-military-losses-00151718

Context matters.

While the *size* of Russia's ground forces has increased, the majority of the added manpower (as well as much of the replacements) are conscripts with minimal training. And it's worth noting some of Russia's most elite units were all but wiped out in the earliest stages of the war.

As for Russia replenishing it's tanks, remember the overwhelming majority of those are ones Russia pulled from its stockpile and refurbished; as a result their tank forces are comparatively weaker then they were before the war.

Thirdly, any Intel Russia gains works both ways. Remember, the US *wanted* Ukraine to use Abrams in NATO style tank movements, only to act shocked when that didn't work on the modern battlefield (especially without air support). Hell, Ukraine outright called the Abrams "inadequate", highlighting are primary tank platform is nearing (or at) obsolescence. Point being: NATOs assumptions about WWIII have been disproven, and that's a lesson better to learn now then later.

I also note *again* that if we just gave Ukraine what it wanted at the start of the war when Russia was in a far worse position, they likely would have won outright.

 

[mailpup]

Back on topic please. Thank you.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

A better solution would have been spending the money putting fiber out to rural areas. That would make it financially viable to provide affordable internet to those areas without needing to fund subsidies for users forever.

That and forcing Local Loop Unbundling. Rip the monopoly away from the providers. The Fiber infrastructure should have been rolled out nationwide a decade ago, lord knows how many billions we have granted ISPs over the last 20 years that ended up in the C suites pockets.

 

[Endymio]

That and forcing Local Loop Unbundling. Rip the monopoly away from the providers. The Fiber infrastructure should have been rolled out nationwide a decade ago

This is a great object lesson in the dangers of government interference in the free market. In the 1960s-1970s, thousands of small cable-TV operators were granted government-monopoly status under the guise of "providing more efficient utility service". States, counties, often even individual cities granted their own exclusive license to one particular company, and made it illegal for anyone else to offer a competing product.

In the '80s and '90s, the great wave of cable mergers turned thousands of small operators into a few large corporations -- but each of them still held that monopoly status, under a Byzantine complexity of thousands of different rules and regulations on what they could offer and where, what they *must* offer and must not, and how much they were required to charge. And though deregulation technically allowed competition, these conglomerations had the enormous benefit of prior buildout, when all the necessary cable right-of-way and physical plant locations were granted by government fiat, rather than the free market. We're still trying to recover from that market distortion today.

 

[jeffbert]

I started with dial-up, and never had broadband until beginning on-line college courses. Yes, waiting for the page to load was annoying. No such thing as streaming video! Other people want to talk on the phone, and my connection was interrupted. Why should the many be forced to subsidize broadband for the few? Let them give-up cigarettes if they otherwise cannot afford broadband! Somebody sure is keeping the cigarette industry alive & well!

It is usually a question of priority; what is more important, this or that? They never subsidized air conditioning; yet, people somehow survived. Likewise color TV, etc. If broadband is available, and seems too expensive, too bad! As a kid, I witnessed our family add an air conditioner, storm windows, central air, color TV (anybody remember when the advertised TV programs were in color?), roof antenna, touchtone telephones, etc., all without government subsidy. Is broadband so much more important than those earlier advances in technology, that people cannot live without it?