The Growing Influence of New York’s Affordable Broadband Law
New York’s recent mandate requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to offer broadband plans at $15 or $20 per month has sparked legislative movements in multiple states. Lawmakers in Vermont, Massachusetts, and California are considering similar measures to provide affordable high-speed Internet access to low-income residents.
Legislative Efforts in Other States
Christopher Morrow, a newly elected Democratic state legislator in Vermont, introduced a bill on January 29, inspired by New York’s law. Morrow emphasized the importance of affordability, citing how the digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted students who lacked Internet access.
Despite opposition from broadband industry groups, courts have affirmed that states can impose stricter regulations on ISPs when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not classify them as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Currently, a federal appeals court has blocked a Biden-era FCC ruling that sought to reinstate net neutrality protections.
New York’s Precedent in Broadband Pricing
New York’s law goes beyond traditional FCC regulations, directly mandating specific price points for broadband services. This initiative follows a precedent set by California, which implemented state-level net neutrality protections when federal regulations were rolled back.
Similarly, Maine passed a broadband privacy law in 2019, mirroring earlier FCC regulations that were repealed by Congress in 2017. ISPs challenged the Maine law in court but ultimately dropped their legal efforts in 2022 after multiple losses.
ISP Resistance to State Regulations
Broadband providers have long opposed state-imposed regulations, arguing that a patchwork of laws across different states creates operational challenges. Industry groups pushed for the Supreme Court to overturn New York’s law, claiming that once enforcement began under the Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), other states would follow suit. However, in December, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and New York commenced enforcement in January.
Industry Reactions: AT&T’s Exit from New York
Rather than comply with the law, AT&T withdrew its 5G home Internet service from New York altogether. However, this move would be more complex in states where AT&T offers fiber or copper-based Internet services, as those infrastructures are harder to abandon.
When California enacted net neutrality protections, AT&T similarly discontinued its “sponsored data” program nationwide. The company claimed it was technically impossible to adhere to one state’s regulations without affecting operations in others. However, Verizon successfully implemented different policies in different states, undermining AT&T’s argument.
The Broader Implications of State-Led Broadband Regulations
Experts like Barbara van Schewick, a professor at Stanford Law School, refute AT&T’s claims, stating that state-by-state compliance is feasible and does not pose a major technical challenge.
The broadband industry is leveraging AT&T’s exit from New York to renew efforts for Supreme Court intervention. Lobby groups recently filed a supplemental brief arguing that New York’s law forces providers to operate at a loss or withdraw services entirely.
As more states consider broadband affordability laws, the battle between state governments and ISPs is likely to intensify, shaping the future of Internet regulation in the U.S.
