As the U.S. government’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) nears its conclusion, a looming specter of internet disconnection threatens individuals with limited incomes. Constitution Communications announced a significant decline in web subscribers on Friday, with a shortfall of approximately 154,000 users. The company attributed this loss primarily to customers canceling their services following the expiration of federal subsidies. Approximately 100,000 subscribers are said to be benefiting from this affordable option, with some patrons even receiving a reduced rate.
Following the lack of additional congressional funding, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is providing $30 monthly broadband discounts to eligible households. The Biden administration has allocated $6 billion to fund the Appalachian Commerce Project (ACP) through December 2024, but critics argue that the program is “wasteful.”
The primary concern of Republican lawmakers was that a significant portion of the American Community Development (ACP) funds were allocated to households that already possessed broadband connections, prior to the establishment of the subsidy program. FCC Chairman Jessica Rosenworcel cautioned that eliminating the reductions could stifle internet accessibility, as a recent agency survey revealed that nearly 8 out of 10 participating households (77%) would either modify their plan or discontinue internet services altogether once the reductions expire.
Notifies clients about early signs of abandoning their online services following the discontinuation of affordable options. “Residential internet customers dropped by 154,000 in the second quarter, primarily due to the expiration of FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program subsidies, contrasting with an increase of 70,000 in the same period of 2023, according to Constitution.”
Across all internet service providers, a total of 23 million US households have enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program. It was discovered that Constitution was serving over 4 million ACP recipients and found that as many as 300,000 of these Constitution clients were at risk of losing web service if the rate reductions expired. If the threshold is lowered, low-income individuals receiving ACP funding might struggle to make ends meet despite choosing to continue internet services, potentially exacerbating financial burdens.
“The key inquiry is whether clients have the financial capability to fulfill their obligations.”
Spectrum, a leading internet provider, offers its services under the Constitution brand, serving over 28.3 million residential customers across 41 states. The corporation’s earnings report highlighted Constitutional provisions that granted retention presents to clients who had previously received an Advanced Commercial Pilot (ACP) subsidy. The shopper’s losses might have been even more severe if not for the mitigating effect of those gifts.
According to the Constitution, approximately 100,000 out of 154,000 buyers incurred losses primarily due to the ACP shutdown. The Constitution has maintained the majority of its ACP subscribers to date; nonetheless, it is unlikely that low-income households will be able to continue paying for internet services without a new subsidy in place for much longer.
The Association for Computing Professionals, or ACP, had a relatively short lifespan of just a few years. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) introduced a $30 monthly profit adjustment in early 2022, replacing an initial $50 per-month subsidy implemented in May 2021 for customers enrolled since then.
As of next week, the FCC’s program offering $9.25 monthly discounts to individuals may face uncertainty with its expiration date looming. Lifeline assistance is funded through the Common Service Fund, a mechanism that has been at the center of a constitutional controversy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that common service fees on cellphone bills constitute a “misbegotten tax” that contravenes the Constitution. Despite this, the Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Appeals Courts have consistently held that the fund is constitutional. Will the circuit court’s decision to split up further increase the likelihood of the Supreme Court taking on the case?
