House Commerce Republicans Criticize ACP Funding in California Hearing
House Republicans pushed back during a Friday Communications Subcommittee field hearing in Bakersfield, California, against calls for Congress to allocate stopgap funding to the FCC’s ailing affordable connectivity program and the rollout of NTIA’s $42.5 billion broadband equity, access and deployment program. ACP supporters believe they made progress last week toward securing a path that keeps the program funded in FY 2024 despite proposals attaching funding to the FAA Reauthorization Act (HR-3935) failing in the Senate (see 2405100046).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
ACP Extension Act (HR-6929) lead sponsor Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., led a letter Thursday with 121 other lawmakers urging that congressional leaders include money for the program in the FAA package, although it wasn’t clear whether they sent the letter before the Senate voted on the measure. “We must move quickly to secure the short-term future of this widely-supported program” the House lawmakers wrote congressional leaders. “Preserving the ACP will ensure that millions of Americans will maintain access [to] essential resources for work, education, healthcare, and more. Including this funding in must-pass FAA legislation will allow Congress the time needed to reach consensus on reforms and a long-term, sustainable funding solution.”
Unwired Broadband Network Operation Director Troy Klinger and Varcomm Holdings CEO Eric Votaw urged lawmakers during the House Communications hearing to provide ACP more money. Votaw suggested Congress pair additional ACP money with integration of it into the Universal Service Fund, something a congressional USF revamp working group is considering (see 2404170066).
“ACP is fundamentally different from” other federal programs such as BEAD, “where we’re trying to provide rural broadband infrastructure in places that don’t have it at all,” said Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif. “It’s a one-time investment where you build the infrastructure and then the infrastructure is there and can be used.” ACP “is subsidizing access” and supporters are asking to sustain what was meant as a “temporary” program during the COVID-19 pandemic, he said. Obernolte suggested ACP prompted ISPs to stop offering voluntary low-cost plans in favor of getting the federal subsidy.
Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif., defended ACP during the hearing. “I’ve learned from thousands of constituents over the last few months about the concerns over this program ending,” he said. Valadao supports giving ACP stopgap funding for FY24, but Congress “must work toward a more sustainable solution,” including “finding a long-term revenue stream and ensuring this funding is targeted at those who truly need it.”
Votaw said "we need to make sure that we continue to serve people" who "can’t afford to get broadband at a normal rate.” He admitted “there were a lot of large carriers that took advantage of ACP,” but small ISPs like Varcomm need the subsidy because it “can’t afford to lower” its rates amid high middle-mile costs.