Ryan Tracy

The Affordable Connectivity Program, or ACP, enrolled more Americans than any previous broadband affordability program in the United States. Despite that success, the ACP faced substantial criticism from conservative members of Congress who saw it as giving away taxpayer dollars to many households that don’t actually need help affording their internet bill. The question going forward is not if the government will subsidize broadband service for Americans, but how. This paper attempts to inform that debate by examining four specific critiques of the ACP:

The federal government has spent $12.82 billion in the last two years helping low-income households pay for internet service. Almost a quarter of it has gone to one company. Charter Communications received $3.01 billion through the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), a larger slice than any of its competitors.

The cost of connecting Nebraska’s Winnebago Tribe reservation with fiber-optic cable could average $53,000 for each household and workplace connected. That amount exceeds the assessed value of some of the homes getting hookups, property records show.

The U.S. plans to spend at least $60 billion in the next decade to ensure every American household has high-speed internet. An old-fashioned obstacle stands in the way: utility poles.

The government’s $42.5 billion plan to expand internet service to underserved communities is stuck in a holding pattern nearly nine months after approval, largely because authorities still don’t know where gaps need to be filled.

The Federal Communications Commission launched a major initiative to provide high-speed internet service to rural Americans in 2020, dedicating $9.2 billion through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) to entice companies to extend their networks to places previously deemed too c

The US government has spent billions of dollars on several rounds of programs to upgrade internet speeds in rural areas over the past decade. Despite those efforts, many residents are still stuck with service that isn’t fast enough to do video calls or stream movies—speeds that most take for granted.

A Senate panel approved antitrust legislation forbidding the largest tech platforms from favoring their own products and services over competitors’, scoring a win for backers of stricter Big Tech regulation against fierce industry opposition. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act moves next to the Senate floor, where several senators said they wanted to see additional changes before backing the measure. The January 20, 16-6 vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee showed the bill had bipartisan support but also raised bipartisan concerns.

President Biden’s bid to inject government deeper into the private sector is getting its first big test in the broadband industry. The $1 trillion infrastructure bill would wire communities across the country that companies haven’t reached and subsidize bills for low-income households. Private companies would be required to publish details about their products, much like nutrition labels, and offer low-cost service plans if they take federal funds to help build networks.

Tim Wu is getting a second chance to change how the government regulates American corporations. Wu, a law professor and progressive antitrust leader, is a key architect of the executive order aimed at making US businesses more competitive. He helped write a similar order in the waning months of the Obama administration, which resulted in a handful of new regulations.