BROADBAND – Amends existing law to revise the definition of broadband.
House Bill 675 amends Idaho Code section 40-517, which governs definitions used in the state’s highway-right-of-way broadband provisions. The bill updates the statutory definition of “broadband” to specify a minimum service standard of 100 megabits per second download and 20 megabits per second upload, and it makes related technical corrections to the definitions section. It also revises and expands related terms such as “broadband infrastructure,” “broadband provider,” “dig once policy,” “highway,” and “longitudinal access.”
The measure appears aimed at clarifying which entities and projects fall within the broadband-right-of-way framework, including telecommunications providers, cable companies, cellular providers, electric utilities and cooperatives, political subdivisions, tribal governments, state entities, ports, nonprofits, and public-private partnerships. By refining these definitions, the bill would affect how broadband infrastructure projects are described and administered under Idaho’s highway access statutes, particularly those involving installation in state highway rights-of-way. The bill includes an emergency clause and would take effect on July 1, 2026.
The bill would amend existing Idaho law in Title 40 by changing the definitions that apply to sections 40-515 through 40-520, which relate to broadband infrastructure in highway rights-of-way. Its practical effect is to update the statutory benchmark for broadband service and to broaden or clarify the categories of entities that may qualify as broadband providers or infrastructure builders. This could influence permitting, coordination, and policy implementation for broadband deployment along state highways and in other public rights-of-way.
Based on the bill text and available legislative context, the overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable, with the bill presented as a technical and definitional update rather than a controversial policy shift. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, and the bill was simply reported, printed, and referred to Local Government. The absence of recorded opposition or debate suggests the measure may be viewed as a housekeeping or modernization bill supporting broadband deployment.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of interest, however, include the updated 100/20 Mbps definition of broadband, which may affect eligibility or compliance standards, and the expanded list of entities recognized as broadband providers or infrastructure builders. Those changes could matter to telecommunications companies, utilities, local governments, tribal governments, ports, and public-private partnerships involved in broadband expansion, but no explicit disagreement is shown in the available record.