HB0382, the Maryland Broadband Opportunity and Fairness Act, requires certain broadband providers operating in the state to create low-income consumer programs by December 1, 2026. Covered providers are those serving 10,000 or more customers, though the Office of Statewide Broadband may exempt smaller providers serving fewer than 20,000 households if compliance would create an unreasonable or unsustainable financial burden. The required programs must offer at least one low-cost broadband option to eligible low-income consumers, with minimum service standards for speed, data allowance, latency, and outage limits, and may only raise prices under limited conditions.
The bill defines eligible low-income consumers broadly, including households that qualify through participation in programs such as free and reduced-price meals, SNAP, Medicaid, the Maryland earned income tax credit, the federal credit for the elderly and permanently and totally disabled, low-income energy assistance, or income at or below 350% of the federal poverty guidelines. Providers must publicize the programs, avoid requiring automatic payment enrollment as a condition of eligibility, allow stand-alone or bundled service options, and file annual compliance reports with the Office of Statewide Broadband. The Office must also review the adequacy of the programs and report findings to the General Assembly.
HB0382 also creates a Broadband Affordability Advisory Board to help establish a definition of a low-cost broadband service option consistent with federal law and NTIA requirements. The bill amends the duties of the Office of Statewide Broadband to align state broadband standards with the new subtitle, collect pricing and service data including low-income plans, and include related information in its public reports and broadband mapping tools. Violations of the new subtitle are treated as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices under Maryland commercial law, making them enforceable under existing consumer protection penalties.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it adds a new subtitle to the Commercial Law Article, expands the regulatory role of the Office of Statewide Broadband, and ties broadband affordability obligations to consumer protection enforcement. It also updates Housing and Community Development provisions to require state broadband definitions, data collection, mapping, and reporting to reflect the new low-income broadband program requirements. In practical terms, the bill would create a statewide framework for subsidized or discounted broadband access for qualifying households and impose ongoing reporting and compliance duties on providers.
The available legislative context shows no recorded committee transcript or vote breakdown, so sentiment must be inferred from the bill’s progress and sponsorship. The bill was introduced by a large bipartisan-looking group of delegates, received a favorable committee report with amendments, and was adopted by the House, suggesting generally positive support for expanding broadband affordability. Likely points of contention include the compliance burden on providers, the mandated service standards and reporting requirements, the price cap on program offerings, and whether the Office should exempt smaller providers or adjust requirements in areas where the standards are not practicable.
HB0382 would create a new regulatory regime in the Commercial Law Article for low-income broadband offerings, making noncompliance an unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice subject to consumer protection enforcement. It also amends the Housing and Community Development Article to require the Office of Statewide Broadband to collect and publish data on low-income broadband plans, align state broadband standards with the new law, and incorporate the new reporting requirements into its annual public reporting and mapping functions. The bill directly affects broadband providers serving 10,000 or more customers, low-income households eligible for discounted service, and the Office of Statewide Broadband, which gains new oversight and reporting responsibilities.
The bill appears to have been received favorably overall, as reflected by a favorable committee report with amendments and House adoption. The broad list of sponsors and the lack of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggest support for expanding broadband affordability and access. At the same time, the amendments and exemption provisions indicate an effort to balance consumer access goals with provider feasibility and cost concerns.
The main areas of potential contention are the scope and cost of the mandate for broadband providers, especially the required minimum speeds, data allowances, outage limits, advertising obligations, and annual reporting. Providers may also object to the restriction on automatic payment enrollment and the requirement to sell network capacity at reasonable wholesale rates if they can no longer provide the low-cost option. Smaller providers and rural providers are partially addressed through an exemption process, which suggests concern that compliance could be financially unsustainable in some markets. Another possible point of debate is how broadly low-income eligibility is defined and how much discretion the Office of Statewide Broadband should have to modify standards by region.