Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Lowering Broadband Costs for Consumers Act of 2025 requires the FCC to expand the contribution base for the Universal Service Fund. It mandates that broadband providers and edge providers, such as streaming services and search engines, contribute to these mechanisms. Certain small or low-revenue providers are exempt from these payments. The bill also directs the FCC to create a new support mechanism for eligible telecommunications carriers in high-cost areas. The overall goal is to promote affordable and available broadband and reduce financial burdens on consumers.
Yes· 3 of 26
- Scored +8
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Specifically targets high-cost area support to expand availability.
- Scored +8
Does this get reliable internet to more people?
Specifically designed to advance universal service and promote available broadband.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly aims to reduce the financial burden on consumers for broadband.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Many owners of large edge providers will be required to pay into the fund.
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Broadband providers and large edge providers face new financial obligations.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduced Consumer Costs: The purpose of the act is to reduce the financial burden on consumers and promote affordable broadband (Section 2(e)(1)).
-
Support for High-Cost Areas: The bill requires the FCC to create a mechanism to provide support for expenses incurred by eligible telecommunications carriers providing services in high-cost areas (Section 2(c)(1)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Financial Burden on Providers: The bill requires edge providers (such as app stores, social media platforms, and e-commerce platforms) and broadband providers to make contributions to the Universal Service Fund (Section 2(b)(2)(A)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Specifically targets high-cost area support to expand availability. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly aims to reduce the financial burden on consumers for broadband. Would farmers be better off under this? — Rural broadband support directly benefits farming communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Strong impact due to high-cost area support, often affecting tribal lands. Would students be better off under this? — Reduced costs and better access are critical for modern educational requirements. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Lower costs for broadband services benefit middle-class families. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Addresses the digital divide by promoting affordable and available broadband. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Addresses the digital divide by promoting affordable and available broadband. Would children be better off under this? — More affordable broadband helps children with homework and digital learning. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Addresses the digital divide by promoting affordable and available broadband. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduced costs for a primary household utility benefit middle-aged consumers. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increased broadband affordability improves access to digital accessibility tools. Would retired people be better off under this? — Lower costs for essential communications services. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improved access in high-cost areas helps seniors stay connected. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Addresses the digital divide by promoting affordable and available broadband. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increased affordability and access to broadband benefits young adults. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Benefit from reduced costs, though infrastructure needs are lower than rural areas. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Potential for lower costs, though less impactful than for lower-income groups. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Many owners of large edge providers will be required to pay into the fund. Would business owners be better off under this? — Broadband providers and large edge providers face new financial obligations.
- Education And Technology
- Does this get reliable internet to more people? — Specifically designed to advance universal service and promote available broadband. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Requires major edge providers (Big Tech) to contribute financially to the Universal Service Fund.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill explicitly aims to reduce the financial burden on consumers for broadband services. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improving broadband access and affordability generally stimulates economic activity. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small edge providers are exempt from the Universal Service Fund contributions.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill creates specific support mechanisms for broadband providers in high-cost (often rural) areas.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands the FCC's authority to mandate contributions from a wider range of providers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reducing broadband costs helps low-income households access essential digital services.
- 6/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/7/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho
Kevin CramerRepublican · North Dakota
Josh HawleyRepublican · Missouri
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
James RischRepublican · Idaho