In the absence of federal leadership on internet affordability, states have become laboratories of innovation. From low-cost plans to consumer protections to housing-based incentives, they are testing resourceful ways to help residents become and stay connected. States looking to take action should study their peers, many of whom are pioneering creative strategies to get more people online.

Some state governments have long prioritized broadband affordability, while others are only now stepping in to fill the vacuum left by Washington. Across their strategic plans, all states cite affordability as one of the chief barriers to achieving universal connectivity. In Achieving Affordability: State Strategies for Getting Everyone Online, I examine how states are working to make high-speed internet more affordable for their residents, offering a menu of policy options explored by states around the country.

These approaches fall into six broad categories:

1. Low-Cost Plans: New York’s Affordable Broadband Act caps the cost of internet plans for low-income households at $20 per month or less. Connecticut will soon require low-cost plans for qualifying low-income residents.
    
2. State Lifeline Reform: State Lifeline programs collect mandatory fees from telecommunications companies, which are generally passed on to consumer bills, to fund discounts on eligible low-income residents’ phone and internet bills. State programs supplement a similar Lifeline program at the federal level, which provides a $9.25-per-month discount. Oregon recently passed legislation to expand its Lifeline subsidy and offer discounts on devices to low-income residents.
    
3. One-Time Subsidies: States, including Maryland and South Carolina, have used or plan to use federal funding for short-term affordability programs. These efforts are inherently time-limited and rely on one-off funding streams.
    
4. Low-Income Housing Incentives: States like Pennsylvania and Indiana are using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) to encourage developers to offer free or subsidized internet in affordable housing units.
    
5. Consumer Protections and Transparency Measures: States such as Arkansas, Virginia, and Tennessee have passed laws to improve pricing transparency and billing practices. These policies aim to empower consumers to better understand the costs of internet service and avoid excess charges. This approach may lower costs indirectly.
6. Enhanced Competition and Consumer Choice: Some states are fostering competition and affordability by permitting the market participation of municipal broadband providers and cooperatives, as well as investing in open-access, middle-mile infrastructure. Others offer deployment subsidies or regulatory relief to lower provider costs and encourage new entrants.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution—but, as my research makes clear, there are multiple viable paths. States are diverse, with a range of existing institutions, political circumstances, and markets; certain conditions facilitate certain policy responses.

As state policymakers reflect on the options available to them, they should consider the following questions and answers to guide that reflection.

Fiscal and Institutional Capacity

Does the state have access to resources that would enable a one-time subsidy?

Does the state have a fund that uses fees collected from telecommunications services to support universal service goals?

• Regardless of the size or scope of the program, the existence of a state Universal Service Fund implies the ability to collect and dispense revenue—key institutional capacities that will support the implementation of reform.

Is there an existing state Lifeline program?

• Does that program cover all residents eligible for the federal Lifeline program (or those that the state wants to target with the program)?
  • Eligibility can mirror the federal Lifeline program, but in some states, it is more expansive or more restrictive.
  • In some states, the existing Lifeline program might only be available in Tribal areas.
• What services (such as landline phones, wireless service, or home internet) does the program cover?
• What is the subsidy amount? Does it meet current needs?
  • When considering the size of the subsidy, recognize that subsidies must be large enough to incentivize households to apply and ISPs to offer the subsidy.
• Which providers in the state are enrolled? Can the state do anything to increase ISP participation, such as reform its ETC criteria?

Market Landscape

What providers already offer low-cost plans, and at what speeds?

• In New York, the law created minimal changes for large providers, which were already offering $15-per-month plans.

• In California, the four largest providers charge an average of $30 per month for their low-cost plans. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Public Advocates Office estimated that these providers would lose about 1 percent of their revenue in California if required to offer a $15-per-month plan.

Are residents served by small regional providers or large national providers?

• If some residents of a state rely on small ISPs for service, state lawmakers might consider a waiver process to ensure that those providers can continue to offer service locally.

• National providers, on the other hand, might be able to exert more pressure against the legislation, as we saw in California, but might be better able to accommodate lower prices for residents.

How might the provider landscape change in response to an approach?

• If providers exit a market, it may leave some areas unserved or in a less favorable situation with respect to competition. On the other hand, more-affordable plans could increase uptake and consumer welfare. How would changes to the landscape contribute to progress or hinder a state’s affordability goals?

Time Horizon of Affordability Needs

Are affordability needs short-term or long-term?

• Acute challenges like post-disaster recovery or economic downturn justify a short-term approach. Long-term problems may require structural reforms.

How will the policy adapt over time?

• Policymakers can embed mechanisms to adjust benefit levels over time (e.g., indexing to inflation or market benchmarks) to prevent erosion of value or unsustainable cost-shifting to either households or providers.

Political and Stakeholder Mapping 

What stakeholders—including ISPs, consumer advocates, and community-based organizations—will have strong opinions? Do stakeholders with strong aversions have veto power?        

• In some states, certain stakeholders—whether industry groups, advocacy organizations, or other influential actors—can exert enough influence to limit policymakers’ ability or willingness to pass legislation. Approaches that avoid the legislative process, such as housing-based incentives, may face less scrutiny and advance more easily.

How can you frame policies to align with the priorities of the party in control?

• Different audiences may respond more favorably to specific messages and policy designs. In Democratic-led states, proposals where government plays an active role in ensuring affordability, such as low-cost-plan legislation or Lifeline reform, may find more champions. In New York and Connecticut, low-cost-plan legislation advanced under unified Democratic control.
• In Republican-led or politically divided states, framing can make a difference in building support. Policies emphasizing consumer rights and transparency, as seen in Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas, have drawn Republican sponsorship. Pro-competition approaches, such as streamlining permitting, may also align well with Republican priorities.

Implementation Design

Who bears the cost of the policy?

• In low-cost-plan legislation, ISPs typically bear the cost, or they may pass it on to other customers through higher prices for non-capped plans.
• In programs like Lifeline, the cost is often passed to consumers through surcharges on their phone or internet bills. Depending on how the state structures its universal service fund, this burden may fall unevenly across customers. Policymakers should examine their contribution system to ensure that it does not place a disproportionate burden on low-income or vulnerable households.

Who is responsible for enrolling customers, and how are their incentives aligned?

• If ISPs are expected to enroll customers, consider how the policy affects their bottom line. If enrollment leads to a financial loss, they may not be motivated to participate without state support.
• If enrollment leads to a gain, such as increased customer retention or reimbursement, ISPs may be more willing to lead awareness and enrollment efforts on their own.
• Alternatively, the state may need to coordinate enrollment directly or partner with trusted intermediaries to ensure participation.

Who is responsible for outreach and awareness?

• Consumers cannot benefit from a program they do not know about. States may need to invest in outreach campaigns to ensure that eligible households are aware of their options. Consider whether ISPs, community organizations, or state agencies are best positioned to conduct outreach, and whether they have the tools and motivation to do so effectively.

A State Playbook for Affordable Connectivity

State governments have stepped up, developing multiple strategies to keep low-income residents connected without placing an undue burden on state budgets. My research focuses on strategies that directly impact consumers, such as low-cost plans and consumer subsidies, as well as various consumer protection measures. My findings also highlight policies that incentivize the delivery of free or subsidized internet access to low-income residents. Because states are constantly innovating and testing out new strategies to meet residents’ affordability needs, my new report is not comprehensive, but rather a starting point for state and federal policymakers seeking to gain insight from recent state-level policy wins.

This conversation continues today. On September 10 at 2:00 p.m. ET, I'll be part of a Benton Institute for Broadband & Society webinar on broadband affordability and policy. I'll discuss my research, and the panel will highlight how broadband affordability, availability, and adoption relate to each other and present current and future opportunities to improve universal access. Please join us on the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society’s YouTube page.

Jordan Arnold is a Master of Public Affairs candidate at Princeton University. She previously served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the Biden-Harris White House, where she led work on broadband and economic development in the Office of the Chief of Staff. A native of Lexington, Virginia, Jordan earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia.

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2025. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities