What does a massive $150 billion corporation do when a law forces it to make slightly less money? It takes its ball and goes home. At least, that’s what AT&T chose to do, ending a long saga of New York state attempting to enforce its affordable broadband law. AT&T has completely withdrawn its 5G home internet service from the state in retaliation.
Technically, this counts as compliance with the law in a “you are free to leave” sort of way. But not for lack of trying to get around it. As Ars Technica reports, the New York law requiring internet service providers to offer plans as cheap as $15 per month to qualifying low-income households was actually put on the books way back in 2021. Lobbyists for AT&T and other ISPs sued, lost, and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case and effectively punted the ruling down to a previous loss.
New York began enforcing its Affordable Broadband Act earlier this week, at which point AT&T pulled its home wireless broadband out of the state completely. “New York’s broadband law imposes harmful rate regulations that make it uneconomical for AT&T to invest in and expand our broadband infrastructure in the state,” it said in a statement to Ars. Other internet service providers appear to be staying, at least for the moment. AT&T is able to so quickly withdraw New York service because it’s entirely wireless, built off the back of its existing mobile phone infrastructure.
Cell phone service will not be affected, and those who have AT&T hardware for 5G home internet will graciously be allowed to keep their now-useless boxes at no extra charge.
The Affordable Broadband Act requires ISPs to provide $15-a-month internet plans of at least 25Mbps, or $20-a-month for at least 200Mbps. But it isn’t a mandate that demands affordable internet for everyone, everywhere. To get access to these lower-priced plans, a New York resident needs to qualify for the National School Lunch Program or have gross household income below 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. ISPs need to provide regular documentation on the program, and can apply for exceptions in areas where providing service at those speeds simply isn’t practical.
These kinds of mandates for low-priced internet access to less affluent residents are hardly unprecedented. On the federal level, the Affordable Connectivity Program expanded broadband access to underserved and low-income communities across the US from 2021 to 2024, a subsidized plan which AT&T participated in. Various government-led programs have made similar attempts over the last few decades, notably the National Broadband Plan in 2009.
One wonders how many millions of dollars AT&T has spent fighting this law in court and in courting legislators through entirely legal lobbying efforts. And one must then also wonder how many households could have been provided internet with those millions.
Most of the households that qualified for New York’s mandated lower rates wouldn’t have been able to afford AT&T’s rates anyway, so it’s not as if AT&T would be cannibalizing its own more lucrative customers. I suspect that a couple of other factors led the company to object so strongly, namely the text of the bill saying that forcibly bundling TV or phone services at these tiers isn’t allowed, and that any hardware rental (the 5G router, in this case) would need to be included in that $15 or $20 monthly charge, and that ISPs have to advertise the availability of these low-income plans. From the text of the law:
“Every person, business, corporation, or their agents providing or seeking to provide broadband service in New York state shall make all commercially reasonable efforts to promote and advertise the availability of broadband service for low-income consumers including, but not limited to, the prominent display of, and enrollment procedures for, such service on its website and in any written and commercial promotional materials developed to inform consumers who may be eligible for service pursuant to this section.”
ISPs have fought tooth and nail across the US to prevent any requirement to provide service for low-income households, while also fighting to prevent alternatives to local service monopolies from taking place, such as community-owned municipal broadband.
