The global pandemic of 2020 did more than disrupt our daily lives—it unraveled fragile seams in our national fabric. Suddenly, our world became more isolated, restricted, and dependent on technology than ever before. Schools, once teeming with talkative students, grocery stores where old friends would meet by chance, and parks buzzing with future leaders and aspiring athletes, suddenly fell silent, replaced by Zoom calls, computer screens, and tired eyes.

As many lamented the loss of in-person interactions, a greater national concern emerged: the urgent need for equitable access to the digital world.

While COVID exposed the equity issue regarding connectivity, programs providing connectivity subsidies have been in place since the ‘90s, run by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Rural Utilities Services Broadband program. While these programs funded some of the infrastructure and facilities necessary to support a technical world, they did not specifically help families with accessing this infrastructure.

To meet this concern, Congress established the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), an initiative aimed at achieving connectivity equity across the nation. Launched on December 31, 2021, under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the ACP became the largest affordability program in U.S. history, aiming to bridge the gap in broadband access from California to Virginia, ensuring that everyone can stay connected in the digital age. Given that it was layered on top of existing federal programs, the ACP tells us a lot about the need to streamline all the various federal programs for consumer benefit.

The ACP and Its Impact

Congress designed ACP as an addition to the existing constellation of long-standing federal subsidy programs that help households and institutions pay for the broadband connectivity necessary for work, school, healthcare, and more. The program offered a discount of up to $30 per month for internet services for eligible households and up to $75 per month for those on tribal land. Additionally, qualifying households could receive a discount of up to $100 to purchase a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet from participating providers. While these amounts might seem modest, many internet providers partnered with the program to adjust their rates, making a significant difference in homes across the country. Along with ACP, Congress also created the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, under which the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) provides broadband access and deployment funds for states to administer. BEAD programs are built with more flexibility than other federal programs, allowing states broad leeway to design support structures that meet NTIA’s requirements. Additionally, the earliest of such programs, the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS), created by executive order in 1935, continues to provide much-needed infrastructure to rural communities, specifically electric power and telecommunications services. This program establishes the critical infrastructure and infrastructure improvements that ACP users need to reap the benefits of the program. While both the ACP and the RUS are interoperable, they are also mutually exclusive, like ACP and the other programs listed.

Comparing ACP and Other Federal Programs

Established in 1985, the FCC’s Lifeline program provides similar assistance as ACP, but in lower amounts and for a narrower scope of subscribers. Eligibility for the Lifeline program is limited to those earning less than 135 percent of the federal poverty level, while ACP’s eligibility extends to 200 percent, and Lifeline’s subsidy is only $9.25 to help defray the monthly bill and $34.25 for those on tribal lands, with no device subsidy. Even so, as with ACP, carriers provide Lifeline-eligible subscribers with lower monthly rates to ensure the federal assistance goes further than it would otherwise. Lifeline is one of four permanent programs at the FCC, along with E-Rate, to help connect qualifying schools, the Rural Health Care Fund to help connect qualifying health providers, and the High-Cost Fund to help connect qualifying rural subscribers.

ACP Funding Structure

The funding structure undergirding the four FCC programs depends entirely on fees assessed on landline telephone subscriptions. Given the dwindling number of those subscriptions, the percentage fee assessed in order to support the FCC funds is about 35 percent today. When the pandemic hit, Congress had already been debating how to deal with this problem, but in the meantime, all the federal funding structures have remained in place. As the FCC distributed ACP funds during the pandemic, it also maintained these other programs while NTIA managed the BEAD program. The main difference between ACP and BEAD and other federal programs is that ACP provides a direct subsidy to individuals who qualify rather than providing support to infrastructure builders that then provide lower-cost options for qualifying individuals.

Connectivity as a Lifeline

While Lifeline has a permanent funding stream generated from fees on phone bills, Congress’ intent with ACP was to ensure connectivity during and following a global pandemic, as more education, work, and healthcare necessarily took place online rather than in person. Even so, ACP’s reach extended far beyond the practicalities of daily life and its drafters’ expectations. In the pandemic, connectivity became more than just a way to keep students in class and businesses operational; it was a literal lifeline for many underserved and marginalized communities. Telehealth services, while already a critical alternative for those living in rural areas with limited access to medical facilities, were expanded due to the circumstances of the pandemic. However, to be able to access and utilize these facilities, connectivity is necessary.

Furthermore, elderly adults who might otherwise be isolated utilize the Internet to maintain connections with family and friends, promoting their well-being and reducing feelings of loneliness.

Beyond the needs of underserved communities found in rural and elderly populations, the value of connectivity plays an equally crucial role in marginalized communities. For BIPOC families, who are often constrained by economic and social barriers, the ACP provided a bridge to education, employment, and entrepreneurial opportunities that were previously out of reach due to limited internet access. LGBTQIA+ individuals use the internet to connect to online communities where they can find support, share information, and find a sense of belonging. The internet remains a vital resource for individuals accessing health and reproductive information, offering access to educational materials, counseling services, and support networks that, in some states, are no longer available.

Moving Forward

More than 20 million households enrolled in the ACP. In part because of this higher-than-anticipated uptake, the funds allocated to the program dwindled before the natural end of the program, and it officially ended on June 1, 2024.

While the ACP effectively served its purpose during the pandemic, it highlights that federal support for broadband deployment and access that has existed long before the pandemic is ripe for reform.

Our collective experience with ACP is a stark reminder that federal programs must fit together logically with one another rather than being layered somewhat haphazardly on top of each other. ACP’s experiment with direct-to-subscriber support is worth studying closely and considering whether it should be made permanent, along with reforms to ensure costs don’t add to already difficult inflationary pressures for Americans. Congress has a rare opportunity to put these lessons to work and streamline federal support for broadband so that going forward, BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, elderly, and rural communities are not left at a disadvantage, essentially unplugged from the rest of our world.