To understand the incidence of subscription vulnerability, the inquiry turns to wireline broadband adoption rates, since the idea is grounded in questions about affordability of home wireline service. Looking at wireline adoption rates for 2023, statistical analysis shows that absent ACP enrollment, wireline broadband adoption levels in 2023 would have been 8.8 percentage points lower than otherwise. This comes to 11.5 million households.

One More Thing

In the end, Columbo’s “one more thing” is the recognition of the importance of looking beyond aggregate numbers in examining ACP and broadband adoption patterns. Instead, peer behind the curtain to examine other factors and how they interact in explaining where ACP figures into broadband adoption patterns. Two things jump out:

• The role of the cost of living: When taking into account food and housing costs, the link between ACP enrollment and higher levels of broadband adoption (and growth) becomes statistically significant.
• Differences by geography: Rural areas showed a stronger association between ACP enrollment and “net additions” than urban and metro areas, while more densely populated areas had a higher likelihood of ACP alleviating “subscription vulnerability.”

These findings give empirical support to what anecdotes tell us about the role of ACP in how low-income households manage internet connectivity, as the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) has documented. Rural residents use ACP for relief for high internet service costs from a sole provider in their area—and data shows that rural residents generally face high broadband service costs. Those living in high-cost metro areas have turned to public libraries for help in defraying connectivity costs in the face of ACP’s end, with high costs of rent figuring into home connectivity decisions. For many of these households, ACP was a part of their strategy for staying online. The data in this report’s analysis shows how this translates into national impacts for as many as 15 million households. And those numbers become clear when the factors captured in NDIA’s testimonials, such as where people live and the stresses of housing costs, are the “one more thing” included in the statistical analysis.

Even if geography is a demarcation in findings, it is important to guard against an “either/or” interpretation of results. It is not just “net addition” in rural areas and only helping the “subscription vulnerable” in urban areas. The discussion above simply shows where these different effects are stronger. Overall, a clear story emerges: by helping to defray the cost of service, ACP is part of low-income households’ toolkit to save money. But for the poorest, keeping internet service without ACP may be difficult—and that applies to both the urban poor, who are more likely to struggle to maintain service, and their rural counterparts, who are more likely to use ACP to add home service.

The “net addition” and “subscription vulnerable” impacts touched approximately 15 million households, in a program in which 23 million households enrolled. This does not mean that the 8 million households that fall neither into the “net addition” nor “subscription vulnerable” categories were not meaningfully impacted by ACP. One can easily imagine households living in an expensive area, perhaps with school-age children, and above income thresholds for benefits such as SNAP stubbornly maintaining broadband service even with few dollars to spare. Cost relief on broadband would—and unquestionably did—help them.