Internet Providers Protest Against White House's $30/Month Connection Bill

Internet service providers are having a hard time complying with the White House's proposed $30 per month connection for low-income households as telecoms urge the government to revise its funding requirements.

In a letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration obtained by Ars Technica, 30 telecoms have joined together to urge the agency to ease requirements that would give ISPs $42.45 billion funding.

ISPs argued that being required to offer a low-cost option for its high-speed internet services likely violates the agency's rules not to "regulate the charged for broadband service."

NITA Funding Not Enough for Widescale Price Cuts, ISPs Claim

The companies claimed that the funding is just enough to cover their commitments to provide services to areas where affording internet connection would economically unfeasible, not to all low-income households in the US.

This is in addition to the telecoms' complaints that low-cost options, even a $48 per month charge, would still be unsustainable for the businesses in 10 years.

It is worth noting, however, that the petition came as several major ISPs like AT&T, Verizon, and Lumen, many of which also signed the letter, raised service charges and terminated old subscription plans many customers often received discounts.

The NITA has yet to publicly address the new demand letter.

ISPs Struggle to Comply with Low-Cost Service Options

Internet providers opposing the government's proposed bill regulations have been nothing new.

In fact, major ISPs have clashed with several agencies this year as the White House cracks down on high-priced, low-quality internet services that continue to affect millions of Americans.

Just months earlier, telecoms raised opposition against the Federal Communication Commission's new ruling to regulate internet bills further, limiting how much ISPs can add charges to people's bills.

This is in addition to trade groups representing the ISPs opposing state laws to bring down prices for internet services, many of which have since failed as the administration continues to endorse price cutdowns.