An act to add Title 15.7 (commencing with Section 3150) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, relating to communications. An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 307.6 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to the Public Utilities Commission.
AB 353 would create the California Affordable Home Internet Act of 2025 and require most internet service providers doing business in California to offer an affordable home internet plan to eligible low-income households in their service territory. The required plan would cost no more than $15 per month and must provide at least 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream, with sufficient speed and latency to support distance learning and telehealth. Eligible households are those with at least one resident enrolled in a qualifying public assistance program, including SSI/SSP, TANF, CalFresh, Medi-Cal, or federal SSI.
The bill also requires providers to make commercially reasonable efforts to advertise the plan, including prominent website placement and enrollment information, and to report annually to the Department of Technology beginning January 1, 2027. Those reports must describe the plan offered, participation and denials, eligibility verification procedures, and the provider’s broadband products and pricing structure. The bill expressly places oversight with the Department of Technology and removes Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction over implementation, enforcement, and rate-setting for these provisions.
AB 353 would affect California Civil Code by adding a new title governing affordable home internet, while also interacting with existing broadband and digital equity policy. It exempts certain providers, including small independent telephone corporations, very small providers serving unserved areas, joint powers authorities, and providers already participating in California Lifeline. The bill would become inoperative if a qualifying federal or state broadband subsidy program for low-income households is implemented and broadly used by large providers.
The general sentiment in the available legislative history appears supportive, with the bill advancing through committee and receiving majority votes at each recorded stage, including a 58-18 Assembly floor vote. The committee actions indicate it was considered worthy of further review and appropriations analysis, suggesting broad interest in expanding affordable broadband access while still recognizing fiscal and implementation issues.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope of the mandate, the price and speed requirements, and the decision to bypass the Public Utilities Commission in favor of the Department of Technology. Potential concerns also include compliance burdens on providers, how eligibility would be verified, and whether the bill duplicates or conflicts with existing or future subsidy programs. The exemptions for smaller and Lifeline-participating providers suggest lawmakers were trying to limit the burden on smaller entities and avoid overlap with existing affordability programs.
AB 353 would add a new set of Civil Code provisions requiring most California internet service providers to offer a low-cost broadband plan to qualifying households and to report related data to the Department of Technology. It would also limit the role of the Public Utilities Commission by stripping it of jurisdiction over rate approval, compliance, enforcement, and eligibility administration for this title, shifting oversight exclusively to the Department of Technology. The bill would create new obligations for providers, new administrative duties for the state, and a conditional sunset tied to the adoption of a qualifying broadband subsidy program.
The recorded votes suggest the bill has generally favorable support in the Legislature, with clear majority approval in committee and on the Assembly floor. The absence of transcript material limits direct insight into debate, but the vote margins indicate the measure was viewed positively overall. The repeated amendments and referral to Appropriations suggest lawmakers were supportive of the policy goal while still scrutinizing cost, administration, and implementation details.
The most notable contention points are likely the affordability mandate itself, the required service level, and the regulatory structure. Providers may object to being required to offer a $15 plan at specified speeds, especially if the bill is seen as imposing cross-subsidization or operational costs. Another point of dispute is the bill’s removal of PUC authority and exclusive assignment to the Department of Technology, which could raise concerns about enforcement capacity and regulatory consistency. There may also be debate over the eligibility standard, the reporting requirements, and whether the bill should defer to broader subsidy programs instead of imposing a standalone mandate.