# Supreme Court Affirms New York’s Affordable Broadband Law: Consequences for ISPs and State Oversight
The Supreme Court has recently opted not to review a challenge made by broadband industry associations regarding New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), a state legislation mandating Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide low-cost broadband packages to low-income individuals. This ruling maintains the decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which supported the law, representing a crucial development in the ongoing discussion surrounding state versus federal jurisdiction in broadband oversight.
## The Affordable Broadband Act: An In-Depth Examination
Passed in 2021, New York’s Affordable Broadband Act stipulates that ISPs must offer broadband plans at $15 per month for a minimum speed of 25 Mbps or $20 per month for speeds of 200 Mbps. These rates encompass all recurring taxes and fees, including equipment rental charges. The legislation also limits annual price hikes to 2% and mandates regular assessments to ensure minimum speed requirements are met. Smaller ISPs with under 20,000 subscribers may seek exemptions, and eligibility for these plans is based on income criteria.
The intention behind the law is to close the digital divide by increasing broadband access for low-income households, a focus that intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, when stable internet access became critical for work, education, and healthcare.
## The Legal Conflict: Industry Opposition and Judicial Outcomes
The broadband sector, represented by six trade associations—including CTIA-The Wireless Association, USTelecom, and the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association—contested the law, claiming it was overridden by federal policies. They specifically referenced the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2017 abrogation of net neutrality regulations under then-Chairman Ajit Pai, which categorized broadband as a Title I information service, thereby constricting the FCC’s regulatory reach.
In 2021, a US District Court initially obstructed the law, siding with the industry’s position. Nonetheless, in April 2024, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling, asserting that the Pai-era FCC’s deregulation of broadband effectively eliminated any federal oversight, thus enabling states to enact their regulations. The appeals court remarked that “a federal agency cannot prevent states from regulating in a sphere where the agency itself lacks regulatory power.”
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case reinforces the 2nd Circuit’s judgment and sets a precedent that may encourage other states to introduce similarly inspired laws.
## Consequences for ISPs and State Oversight
The Supreme Court’s ruling carries major consequences for the broadband sector and state authorities:
### 1. **Increased State Involvement in Broadband Oversight**
With federal supervision diminished due to the FCC’s deregulation, states such as New York are taking measures to address the gap. The 2nd Circuit’s ruling highlights that states maintain the power to regulate broadband pricing and access, particularly when federal agencies opt not to intervene. This could lead to other states adopting comparable affordability initiatives, resulting in a complex landscape of regulations that ISPs will need to manage.
### 2. **Difficulties for ISPs**
ISPs have consistently contended that state-level regulations could create a patchwork of inconsistent guidelines and rising operational costs. The industry is concerned that the successful defense of New York’s law will encourage other states to follow suit, potentially resulting in extensive rate regulation. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the trade associations cautioned that the Affordable Broadband Act might set a precedent for “below-market rates” that may prove economically unviable.
### 3. **Realignment in the Net Neutrality Discussion**
The ruling also underscores the broader ramifications of the FCC’s 2017 repeal of net neutrality standards. By yielding its authority to regulate broadband as a Title II common carrier service, the FCC inadvertently permitted states to assert their regulatory rights. This dynamic has also been reflected in California’s successful defense of its own state-level net neutrality legislation, which withstood several legal challenges from the broadband sector.
### 4. **Advantages for Consumers**
For low-income households, the Supreme Court’s decision represents a triumph that could result in more cost-effective broadband choices. In New York, the law holds the promise of making high-speed internet attainable for numerous households that might otherwise be unable to afford it. The state’s attorney general, Letitia James, stated that the law serves the public good without imposing excessive economic burdens on ISPs, pointing out that many providers already voluntarily offer low-cost plans.
## Wider Context: The FCC’s Role and Upcoming Challenges
The FCC, under current Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, has been striving to restore net neutrality regulations and reclassify broadband as a Title II service. However, these initiatives have encountered legal hurdles, including a recent decision from the 6th Circuit that temporarily blocked the FCC’s latest net neutrality order. The ongoing legal disputes underscore the complicated and frequently contentious relationship between federal and state authorities in the realm of broadband regulation.
If the FCC is successful in reinstating
