Broadband Access and Net Neutrality

Broadband internet policy encompasses two interconnected challenges: ensuring all Americans have access to affordable high-speed internet (the "digital divide"), and determining whether internet service providers may treat different types of internet traffic differently ("net neutrality"). Federal law establishes the FCC's authority over telecommunications, the Universal Service Fund that subsidizes connectivity in underserved areas, and — through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — the largest federal broadband investment in history.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 47 U.S.C. § 151 — FCC establishment (creates the FCC to regulate interstate and international communications by wire and radio)
• 47 U.S.C. § 254 — Universal service (requires affordable telecommunications services throughout the nation; establishes the Universal Service Fund; supports schools, libraries, rural health, and high-cost areas)
• 47 U.S.C. § 1302 — Advanced telecommunications capability (requires the FCC to encourage broadband deployment and report annually on availability; if broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion, the FCC shall take immediate action)
• 47 U.S.C. § 1303 — Broadband data improvement (requires the FCC to compile, assess, and make public broadband availability data)

How It Works

Broadband policy operates on two tracks: deployment (building the infrastructure) and regulation (governing how internet service is provided).

Deployment has been the primary federal focus, driven by the recognition that millions of Americans — particularly in rural areas, tribal lands, and low-income urban neighborhoods — lack access to broadband internet. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, funded with $42.45 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, is the largest broadband infrastructure investment in U.S. history. BEAD allocates funds to states based on the number of unserved and underserved locations (determined by FCC broadband maps), and states award subgrants to internet service providers to build networks.

The Universal Service Fund has supported broadband for decades through four programs: E-Rate subsidizes internet for schools and libraries; Lifeline provides a monthly subsidy (~$9.25) for phone or internet service for low-income households; the High-Cost Program subsidizes service in rural and remote areas where it's uneconomical to build without support; and the Rural Health Care Program connects rural healthcare providers. The Fund is financed by contributions from telecommunications providers, which ultimately pass the cost to consumers as a line item on phone and internet bills.

Net neutrality — the principle that internet service providers should treat all internet traffic equally, without blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization — has been one of the most contentious technology policy debates of the past two decades. The legal battle centers on whether broadband internet should be regulated as a "telecommunications service" under Title II of the Communications Act (see FCC Telecommunications Regulation) (which gives the FCC clear authority to impose common carrier obligations, including net neutrality rules) or as an "information service" under Title I (which provides less regulatory authority). The FCC has oscillated between these classifications across administrations, with the 2024 reclassification under Title II restoring net neutrality rules — subject to ongoing legal challenges.

The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) provided $30/month subsidies (and $75/month on tribal lands) to help low-income households afford broadband, reaching approximately 23 million households before its funding expired in May 2024. The program's expiration left millions of households facing higher internet bills, driving advocacy for renewed funding.

How It Affects You

If you live in a rural area without reliable broadband: The $42.45 billion BEAD program is the largest federal investment in broadband infrastructure ever — and it's specifically targeted at your situation. States are currently in the process of identifying "unserved" locations (below 25/3 Mbps) and "underserved" locations (below 100/20 Mbps) using the FCC's Broadband Data Collection maps. If your address is misclassified as served when you actually lack broadband, you can challenge it — find your state's challenge process through your state broadband office (listed at ntia.gov/broadband/bead). Full BEAD buildout is realistically years away; states are still in the subgrant award phase as of 2026. In the meantime, check whether satellite options like Starlink ($120/month) reach your area at starlink.com, or whether a regional cooperative is offering service. Rural electric cooperatives are among the most active BEAD subgrant applicants and may have deployment timelines to share with members.

If you're struggling to afford internet service: The Lifeline program provides $9.25/month (or $34.25/month on tribal lands) toward phone or internet service for households at or below 135% of the federal poverty level. Eligible programs include Medicaid, SNAP, SSI, federal public housing, and Veterans Pension — qualifying for any of them typically qualifies you for Lifeline. The Affordable Connectivity Program that was providing $30/month to 23 million households expired in May 2024 with no renewal funding authorized as of 2026. If you were receiving ACP, ask your ISP about their low-income tier plans — major ISPs like Comcast (Internet Essentials, $10/month), AT&T (Access, $5-30/month), and Charter/Spectrum (Spectrum Internet Assist, $24.99/month) maintain reduced-price plans that don't require ACP. Apply for Lifeline through lifelinesupport.org or directly through a participating carrier; the application requires proof of program participation or income.

If you work in a school or public library: E-Rate provides 20–90% discounts on broadband and telecommunications services to schools and libraries, with higher discounts for higher poverty rates and rural locations. The most rural, highest-poverty schools and libraries can receive up to 90% off eligible services. E-Rate funding comes from the Universal Service Fund and is administered by USAC at usac.org/e-rate. If your school or library isn't participating, contact your state E-Rate coordinator or the USAC E-Rate helpdesk — the application process is manageable, and funding levels (approximately $4 billion annually) are substantial. E-Rate now covers internal connections (Wi-Fi equipment) and managed Wi-Fi services in addition to external broadband connections, meaning it can fund complete network upgrades in underfunded buildings.

If you're a content creator, streaming service, or internet startup: As of 2026, there are no federal net neutrality rules. The FCC's 2024 Title II order was vacated by the 6th Circuit in 2025, and the Trump FCC has abandoned further rulemaking. This means your ISP can theoretically prioritize, throttle, or create paid fast lanes for internet traffic — favoring their own content or large incumbents who can pay for priority delivery. In practice, major ISPs have not yet implemented aggressive paid prioritization, in part due to reputational risk and state laws: California, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Maine, and New Jersey have enacted their own net neutrality protections. If you're in one of those states, your traffic is somewhat protected at the state level. For ongoing policy tracking, see freepress.net and the Electronic Frontier Foundation's deeplinks.eff.org.

State Variations

Broadband and net neutrality policy involves significant state activity:

• State broadband offices: Every state has established a broadband office to administer BEAD and other federal funds
• State net neutrality laws: California, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and others have enacted state-level net neutrality protections
• State broadband grants: Many states supplement federal funding with their own broadband infrastructure programs
• Dig-once policies: Some states require broadband conduit installation during road construction projects

• Municipal broadband: State laws vary on whether municipalities can operate their own broadband networks — some states restrict it, others encourage it
• Right-of-way access: State laws govern ISP access to public rights-of-way for network construction

Implementing Regulations

• 47 CFR Part 8 — Open Internet and Internet Transparency; Cybersecurity Labeling for IoT Products: Part 8 was originally the FCC's net neutrality rule but now serves two distinct purposes under two subparts:

  Subpart A — Broadband Transparency (§ 8.1): after the net neutrality rules were vacated by courts, the FCC retained the transparency requirement — any entity providing broadband internet access service must publicly disclose accurate information about: (1) network management practices (including any traffic throttling, blocking, or paid prioritization practices); (2) performance characteristics (typical download/upload speeds, latency, packet loss); and (3) commercial terms (pricing, data caps, fees, early termination penalties, and other contract terms); the disclosures must be made in a clear and conspicuous format accessible to consumers; as amended in 2024 (89 FR 45554), ISPs must use standardized "Broadband Nutrition Labels" — uniform disclosure labels modeled on FDA food nutrition labels, comparing ISP offers apples-to-apples on speeds, pricing, and policies; the FCC has enforcement authority over false or misleading broadband disclosures even without full net neutrality rules in effect

  Subpart B — Cybersecurity Labeling for IoT Products (§§ 8.201–8.209): the FCC's new U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program for consumer Internet of Things (IoT) products — smart home devices, connected appliances, smart speakers, wearables, and similar devices; finalized 2024. The program allows manufacturers to display the FCC's "U.S. Cyber Trust Mark" shield on products that meet baseline cybersecurity standards:

  • § 8.203 — Definitions: a "consumer IoT product" means a device and its software components that connect to the internet and are primarily intended for personal, family, or household use; excludes computers, smartphones, and medical devices already regulated by FDA
  • § 8.204 — Prohibited sources: IoT products manufactured by entities on the FCC's "covered list" of national security concerns (primarily Chinese manufacturers like Huawei, ZTE, and their affiliates) may not obtain the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark, regardless of whether the product itself meets the standards
  • § 8.205 — Cybersecurity labeling authorization: manufacturers apply to a Cybersecurity Labeling Administrator (CLA) — an FCC-accredited third-party testing and certification organization; the CLA verifies the product meets the baseline security requirements (drawn from NIST's Cybersecurity Framework for IoT and NIST IR 8425 profile for consumer IoT)
  • §§ 8.207–8.209 — Responsible party and grant: the applicant (manufacturer or authorized importer) is the "responsible party" who ensures ongoing compliance; once the CLA grants cybersecurity labeling authorization, the product may display the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark; the mark includes a QR code linking to a public registry showing the product's cybersecurity attributes, update policy, and certification status; the responsible party must maintain the product's security (providing patches during the support period) or lose the mark

  The IoT cybersecurity labeling program addresses a long-standing market failure: consumers have no way to assess the security of connected devices, creating a "lemon market" where cheap insecure devices drive out better-secured alternatives. The U.S. Cyber Trust Mark is voluntary, but the FCC expects competitive pressure — and eventual federal procurement requirements — to drive adoption. Products that lose their certification (e.g., by stopping security updates) must remove the mark from marketing. The FCC and CISA jointly coordinate the program with NIST. Recent rulemakings: 89 FR 24804 (April 2024) — Broadband Nutrition Label rules requiring standardized disclosure format; 89 FR 79684 (October 2024) — IoT cybersecurity labeling final rule establishing the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program.

• 47 CFR Part 54 — Universal service (§§ 54.1602–54.1604 — Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, Affordable Connectivity Program support amounts, participating provider obligations)

• 47 CFR Part 1 — FCC practice and procedure (§§ 1.1415, 1.7004, 1.7005 — pole attachment dispute resolution for broadband deployment, Broadband Data Collection filing scope and disclosure)

• 47 CFR Part 27 — Miscellaneous wireless services (§§ 27.1217–27.1219 — Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service competitive bidding and designated entity provisions)

• 47 CFR Part 69 — Access charges (§§ 69.132, 69.311, 69.416 — Consumer Broadband-Only Loop charges, investment, and expenses for non-price cap carriers)

• 47 CFR 1.7004-1.7010 — Broadband Data Collection (scope, content, frequency of broadband availability filings; data disclosure rules; broadband coverage map creation authority; authority to update the BDC)

• 47 CFR 1.1415 — Dispute resolution for pole attachment disputes that impede broadband deployment (Rapid Broadband Assessment Team procedures)

• 47 CFR Part 16 — Digital Discrimination of Access: the FCC's November 2023 rule implementing § 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021) (47 U.S.C. § 1754), which directs the FCC to adopt rules to ensure equal access to broadband regardless of income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin. Part 16 is the regulatory counterpart to net neutrality — where net neutrality governs how providers treat different types of internet traffic, digital discrimination rules govern whether providers deploy, upgrade, and maintain broadband infrastructure equally across communities with different demographic characteristics. Key provisions:

  • § 16.3 — Digital discrimination of access prohibited: it is unlawful for any broadband provider or covered entity to adopt, implement, or utilize policies or practices that differentially impact consumers' access to broadband based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin; "digital discrimination" includes both intentional discrimination (deploying to higher-income or majority-race neighborhoods first or exclusively) and policies with disparate impacts on protected categories that are not technically and economically necessary
  • § 16.4 — Findings of discrimination: the FCC may find intentional discrimination based on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence (such as unexplained deployment patterns, internal communications, or statistical disparities); disparate impact claims require showing that a challenged policy or practice significantly disadvantages a protected group — the burden then shifts to the provider to demonstrate technical or economic necessity
  • § 16.5 — Technical and economic feasibility defense: a broadband provider is not liable for disparate impact if it demonstrates that the differential treatment is attributable to technical or economic factors unrelated to protected characteristics — for example, that low-density rural geography (not race or income) explains deployment gaps; intentional discrimination, however, has no technical/economic feasibility defense
  • § 16.6 — Enforcement: complaints alleging digital discrimination may be filed with the FCC's Enforcement Bureau; the FCC investigates and may issue cease-and-desist orders, fines, and conditions on licenses; the Enforcement Bureau may initiate investigations on its own motion or in response to consumer complaints
  • § 16.7 — Advisory opinions: covered entities may request advisory opinions from the Enforcement Bureau on whether specific proposed policies or practices would constitute digital discrimination — providing a pre-approval pathway for ISPs that want regulatory certainty before deploying network configurations

  The Part 16 rule was finalized in November 2023 (88 FR 77492) after IIJA § 60506 required the FCC to act by November 2023. The rule has faced legal challenges — ISPs have argued that the disparate impact standard exceeds the FCC's statutory authority and raises First Amendment concerns. The Sixth Circuit's 2024 ruling vacating net neutrality rules under Loper Bright (which eliminated Chevron deference) created parallel uncertainty about Part 16's future, as the FCC's interpretation of § 1754 similarly rests on broad statutory language. The Trump administration's FCC under Chairman Brendan Carr has signaled less aggressive enforcement of digital discrimination rules. As of 2026, Part 16 remains on the books but its enforcement future is uncertain. Recent rulemaking: 88 FR 77492 (November 2023) — final rule implementing IIJA § 60506.

Pending Legislation

• S 3268 — Federal process to speed broadband installations in public/railroad rights-of-way. Status: Introduced.
• HR 6046 — Federal broadband right-of-way process with timelines, cost rules, FCC disputes. Status: In committee.
• HR 6503 — Exempt broadband projects from NEPA/NHPA review, 45-day tribal consultation. Status: Introduced.
• HR 6920 — Repurpose BEAD funds for competitive broadband subgrants, AI-ready networks. Status: Introduced.
• S 3633 — Extend rural middle-mile broadband authorization to 2026-2031. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

• Net neutrality effectively dead at the federal level (2025): The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the FCC's April 2024 order restoring net neutrality rules and reclassifying broadband as a Title II telecommunications service — citing the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision (which eliminated Chevron deference) as removing the legal foundation for the FCC's interpretation. When the Trump administration took office in January 2025, the new FCC chair Brendan Carr announced the commission would not pursue further net neutrality rulemaking. As of 2026, there are no federal net neutrality rules. State laws in California, Washington, Oregon, and others remain in effect and provide some protections for residents in those states.
• BEAD program delays and review: The $42.45 billion BEAD broadband deployment program — the largest federal broadband investment in history — faced delays in 2025 as the Trump administration ordered NTIA to review all grant programs for compliance with executive orders on DEI and other priorities. Several states saw their final BEAD plans pending NTIA approval while the review was conducted. Some states that had already received Initial Proposal approval began awarding subgrants, but full nationwide deployment remains years away.
• Affordable Connectivity Program not restored: The ACP expired in May 2024, ending $30/month subsidies for approximately 23 million households. The Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress did not prioritize ACP restoration, and millions of households faced higher internet bills. ISPs participating in BEAD have some affordability obligations under program rules, but these don't fully replace the ACP benefit.
• FCC leadership change and deregulatory posture: Brendan Carr became FCC chair in January 2025, bringing a strongly deregulatory agenda that includes: eliminating or scaling back net neutrality rules, reviewing Section 230 (liability immunity for internet platforms), scrutinizing foreign ownership of broadcast and telecommunications licenses, and using FCC authority to address what Carr termed "Big Tech censorship." The FCC's approach represents a significant departure from the previous four years of consumer-protection-focused telecommunications regulation.
• FCC moves to empower space-based broadband (April 2026): The FCC announced plans to modernize 1990s-era rules governing satellite broadband, aiming to "massively boost broadband speeds and capacity" through updated spectrum sharing rules for satellite internet providers like Starlink and Amazon Kuiper. Chairman Brendan Carr framed the action as essential for closing the rural broadband gap.