This brief examines how place-based factors—such as education levels, social vulnerability, regional economic strength, and measures of income inequality—influence broadband affordability. These measures reinforce that income is not the only factor policymakers should consider when seeking to understand broadband affordability and adoption challenges. Together, these metrics provide a more holistic understanding of the variables that affect households’ ability to adopt broadband, which can help states develop effective, targeted policies for delivering affordable broadband to middle-class families. Pew’s analysis indicates that these and other social and demographic factors drive middle-class broadband affordability and that state broadband offices must account for these variables when evaluating whether their definition of “reasonable prices” is sufficient to yield truly affordable subscription plans for their communities. Accordingly, state policymakers should:

• Incorporate local social and economic demographics in their scoring metrics for BEAD applications to better reflect middle-class affordability in their communities.
• Consider multiple factors when crafting affordability plans to avoid pricing out targeted households.

State Broadband Offices and the BEAD grant process have designed grant rules that put pressure on internet service providers to provide inexpensive rural broadband. But in doing so, I’m not sure that they understand the high prices that rural folks are paying for broadband today. In rural areas I've looked at, most households are paying over $100 a month for broadband. There are state BEAD rules that are trying to force rates down to rates between $50 and $75 per month for gigabit speeds. I find several faults with these rate-setting efforts:

• The rates the Broadband Offices are seeking are typically far cheaper than what the large cable companies charge the companies that have the most customers in almost every state. It’s hard to think of a reason why grant offices want rural rates to be lower than urban rates, particularly when operating costs are higher in rural areas.
• The low rates don’t acknowledge that rural residents are already paying a lot more for inferior broadband. Do we really need to cut what folks are paying in half if they are going to upgrade from crappy broadband?
• The high rates are counterproductive. I talked to an electric cooperative this week that has zero interest in BEAD grants due entirely to the insistence on low rates. They understand the rates necessary to win BEAD would create a losing business plan.
• Probably most important is that the IIJA legislation strictly forbids NTIA and the States from using the grants for setting rates—and yet States are openly doing it anyway. Why isn’t the NTIA rejecting these rate plans?

Pennsylvania will be getting $1.2 billion in Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program rural broadband funding, making it one of the top states in terms of the amount awarded. Telecompetitor spoke with Brandon Carson, executive director of the Pennsylvania Broadband Development Authority, about BEAD and other efforts to make broadband available throughout the state. Pennsylvania aims to deliver service to 236,000 unserved and 52,000 underserved locations. Carson points out that the most recent under/unserved numbers are down 40,000 locations; he attributes the reduction to significant recent private investment and the completion of some enforceable funding commitments. In its Volume II BEAD proposal, the Commonwealth outlines plans for two rounds of funding, with the first round soliciting proposals starting in the summer of 2024. Round one applicants will be required to cover at least 95 percent of eligible broadband serviceable locations in the proposed project area., which Carson hopes will maximize investments.

The Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules requiring cable and satellite TV providers to specify the “all-in” price clearly and prominently for video programming service in their promotional materials and on subscribers’ bills. On June 20, 2023, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), observing that consumers who choose a video service based on an advertised monthly price may be surprised by unexpected fees that cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers charge and list in the fine print separately from the top-line listed service price. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to enhance pricing transparency by requiring cable operators and DBS providers to provide the “all-in” price for video programming in their promotional materials and on subscribers’ bills. In this Order, we adopt the proposal in the NPRM to require that cable operators and DBS providers provide the “all-in” price of video programming as a prominent single line item on subscribers’ bills and in promotional materials that state a price.