Blair Levin

I recently testified at a Senate Communications Subcommittee Hearing in support of legislation to extend the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).

Your written testimony noted various affiliations. Which companies that receive ACP have you or your employers received funding from since the program’s inception?

At a recent Senate Commerce Committee hearing, one of the witnesses produced a study (the EPIC study) that concluded that ACP led to inflation in broadband services. In addressing your question of which studies Congress should rely on, I think the EPIC study demonstrates the very problem you raise.

I am confident in opining that the lack of broadband in homes of children attending school will make the problems in our educational system worse, not better.  The fact that the problem of reading scores pre-dates the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) does not make it less of a problem.  Nor does it address the question of whether ACP can be helpful in addressing low reading scores, particularly as artificial intelligence develops personalized ways to assist young readers in overcoming specific decoding problems that serve as barriers to their learning to read. Again, I would urge Congr

Senate Commerce Committee  Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked New Street Research Policy Advisor and Brookings Nonresident Senior Fellow Blair Levin to clarify remarks Levin made about the negative impact the end of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) will have on the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program. Levin answered saying that BEAD does not fund the cost of deployment broadband to an unserved or underserved area; rather it funds the difference between the cost of deployment and what a provider would be willing to invest to serve that area.

The record shows that Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) recipients regard using access to broadband as critical to their healthcare. A recent study found that 75% of ACP participants fear that losing access to ACP will result in losing access to healthcare. This is consistent with another large-scale survey found that 45% of adults believe that inadequate access to technology, including broadband and computers, is a barrier to telehealth, and this was especially prominent among rural residents and adults over the age of 65. That is, ACP

I applaud private efforts to address low-income adoption, particularly Comcast’s Internet Essentials, which is the oldest and most extensive program. Comcast started the program in 2011 and has continually studied and changed the program to improve its outcomes. That is the path the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress should follow with the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP).

A fair reading of Dr. John Horrigan’s work would start by adopting his insight that the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is part of a three-legged stool that during the pandemic helped increase broadband adoption and sustain it for low-income households.

By connecting more people to the internet via the Affordable Connectivity Program, the savings from reductions in the cost of Medicaid alone could result in a net gain to the government.  And that does not incorporate savings from Medicare, the Veterans Administration, and other government-funded healthcare programs.  Further, there are other savings related to other government programs.  For lower-income individuals, adopting in-home broadband increases their likelihood of employment by 14%, with 62% of those newly connected households citing the connection as having helped them or a 

What is the economic benefit of the Affordable Connectivity Program to the health care system? In short, there are many ways that telehealth can reduce costs and improve outcomes.