Affordable broadband California bill would force ISPs to offer 100Mbps plans for $15 a month Like New York law, Calif. bill demands cheap plans for people with low incomes. Jon Brodkin Mar 21, 2025 4:46 pm | 16 Credit: Adrienne Bresnahan | Getty Images Credit: Adrienne Bresnahan | Getty Images Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreA proposed state law in California would force Internet service providers to offer $15 monthly plans to people with low incomes. The bill is similar to a New York law that took effect in January but has a higher minimum speed requirement: The proposed $15 plans for low-income California residents would have to come with download speeds of 100Mbps and upload speeds of 20Mbps.Broadband lobby groups fear that many states will enact such requirements after New York won a multiyear court battle to enforce its law. The Supreme Court has rejected telecom industry challenges to the New York law twice.The California bill was proposed in January by Democratic Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, but the original version simply declared an intent to require affordable home Internet service and contained no specifics on required speeds or prices. The requirement for specific speeds and a $15 price is being added to the bill with an amendment that was provided to Ars today by Boerner's office. The amendment should be in the official record by early next week, a Boerner spokesperson said."Every California Internet service provider shall offer for purchase to eligible households within their California service territory affordable home Internet service that meets minimum speed requirements," the amended bill says. Each ISP would also be required to "make commercially reasonable efforts to promote and advertise" these plans, including via a "prominent display" on its website and promotional materials sent to consumers in eligible households.The amendment defines affordable home Internet service as a plan costing no more than $15 a month, including all recurring taxes and fees. The speed requirements are at least 100Mbps downstream and 20Mbps upstream, with "sufficient speed and latency to support distance learning and telehealth services." The plans would have to be offered to households in which at least one resident participates in a qualified public assistance program.Several states consider price requirementsWhile the California proposal will face opposition from ISPs and is not guaranteed to become law, the amended bill has higher speed requirements for the $15 plan than the existing New York law that inspired it. The New York law lets ISPs comply either by offering $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. The New York law doesn't specify minimum upload speeds.AT&T stopped offering its 5G home Internet service in New York entirely instead of complying with the law. But AT&T wouldn't be able to pull home Internet service out of California so easily because it offers DSL and fiber Internet in the state, and it is still classified as a carrier of last resort for landline phone service.The California bill says ISPs must file annual reports starting January 1, 2027, to describe their affordable plans and specify the number of households that purchased the service and the number of households that were rejected based on eligibility verification. The bill seems to assume that ISPs will offer the plans before 2027 but doesn't specify an earlier date. Boerner's office told us the rule would take effect on January 1, 2026. Boerner's office is also working on an exemption for small ISPs, but hasn't settled on final details.Meanwhile, a Massachusetts bill proposes requiring that ISPs provide at least 100Mbps speeds for $15 a month or 200Mbps for $20 a month. A Vermont bill would require 25Mbps speeds for $15 a month or 200Mbps for $20 a month.Telco groups told the Supreme Court last year that the New York law "will likely lead to more rate regulation absent the Court's intervention" as other states will copy New York. They subsequently claimed that AT&T's New York exit proves the law is having a negative effect. But the Supreme Court twice declined to hear the industry challenge, allowing New York to enforce the law.Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 16 Comments