Call: 1-877-697-2926

Moving toward a continuum model of broadband affordability for low-income households 2025

Rethinking Broadband Affordability: Toward a Continuum Model for Low-Income Households

High-speed internet access now underpins everything from education and employment to healthcare and civic participation. For low-income households, getting—and staying—connected is no longer optional; it's a baseline requirement for day-to-day life. Yet far too often, affordability is treated as a binary condition: either a household can pay for broadband, or it cannot. This oversimplified view fails to capture the spectrum of financial trade-offs, inconsistent access, and policy gaps low-income families routinely navigate.

This article introduces a continuum model of broadband affordability, which recognizes that affordability operates on a sliding scale rather than a fixed threshold. We'll explore how housing instability, income volatility, and systemic barriers interact to shape broadband access for the lowest-income communities. The goal: shift the conversation from simplistic qualifiers to strategies that reflect the real economic conditions affecting digital equity.

Breaking Down the Real Cost of Broadband for Low-Income Households

Cost of Service and the Limits It Imposes

Broadband plans in the U.S. commonly range from $60 to $80 per month for standalone service, excluding equipment fees and taxes. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the average cost of a broadband plan delivering download speeds of at least 100 Mbps stood at $75.11 in 2021. For households with incomes at or below the poverty line—$15,060 for a single individual or $31,200 for a family of four in 2024—this monthly charge absorbs a significant share of disposable income. In many cases, broadband service costs 5% to 10% of a low-income household's entire monthly income.

Consider this: the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the lowest income quintile spends an average of $32,560 annually, with housing, food, and transportation making up nearly 80% of that budget. In this context, high fixed broadband fees compete directly with necessities. At these prices, recurring payments aren’t just inconvenient—they’re unsustainable.

One-Size-Fits-All Affordability Models Are Obsolete

Government and industry standards have long used static thresholds—like the FCC’s “affordability” benchmark of broadband costing no more than 2% of monthly income—to define internet affordability. These models assume uniform budgets and needs, applying flat percentages regardless of geographic, economic, or social variability.

However, such metrics conceal more than they reveal. A household earning $30,000 per year in rural Mississippi faces a different affordability equation than one earning the same amount in New York City. Flat affordability indices do not account for regional differences in housing costs, transportation access, or healthcare burdens. They also fail to reflect the unpredictable nature of income in many low-income homes, where wages may fluctuate week-to-week or month-to-month.

Affordability Must Reflect Local and Social Realities

Moving away from static models requires integrating localized context—including urban density, infrastructure availability, and income volatility—into affordability assessments. In rural areas, where broadband infrastructure is often sparse or monopolized, competition issues drive prices higher even as incomes remain lower. The Pew Research Center found that 28% of rural Americans cited cost as a reason for not subscribing to broadband, compared with just 19% of urban residents.

In cities, low-income populations may live in connectivity-rich zip codes yet still lack service due to hidden fees, legacy debt, or digital literacy barriers. A continuum model recognizes these nuances by tying affordability recommendations to lived experiences: not just what households earn, but where they live, how they access public services, and what economic shocks they consistently navigate.

The affordability problem, therefore, can no longer be defined purely by price points. It must be redrawn to include dynamic, place-based indicators of economic stress and opportunity. Static math won't solve digital exclusion. Localized logic will.

Mapping the Divide: Socioeconomic Barriers That Shape Broadband Access

Income Disparity: Broadband as a Privilege, Not a Given

Broadband adoption remains tightly linked to household income. According to the Pew Research Center’s 2021 data, just 57% of U.S. adults in households earning under $30,000 annually reported having broadband at home—compared with 92% in households making $75,000 or more. That 35-point gap illustrates how digital access is stratified along economic lines.

For low-income households, the cost of broadband competes with essential needs like food, housing, and transportation. When bandwidth comes down to a monthly trade-off, households often sideline it—especially when every dollar is already accounted for.

Education, Digital Literacy, and the Skills Gap

Lower broadband adoption is not just about affordability—education levels also correlate strongly with usage. Adults without a high school diploma adopt digital tools at substantially lower rates. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics found that only 41% of adults age 25 and older with less than a high school diploma used the internet at home in 2021, versus 92% of college graduates.

Limited digital literacy further compounds the problem. Even when infrastructure and low-cost options exist, individuals without the skills to navigate digital platforms remain functionally disconnected. This creates a loop: lack of access impedes digital learning, and lack of digital skills reduces the perceived or actual utility of access.

Housing Instability and Language Barriers

Stable broadband subscriptions are difficult to maintain without stable housing. Households experiencing eviction risks, frequent relocations, or homelessness cannot reliably maintain a fixed service address—something broadband providers still demand. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reported over 580,000 people experiencing homelessness in 2022, many of whom remain digitally invisible.

In addition, for households where English is not the primary language, navigating broadband plans, agreements, and support platforms poses another layer of exclusion. Providers rarely offer multilingual support that addresses both linguistic and literacy needs, leaving limited-English proficient populations underserved—even in dense urban areas.

Infrastructure vs. Subscription: Two Sides of the Access Coin

Access divides into two dimensions: physical availability and practical affordability. The FCC’s 2023 Broadband Deployment Report indicates that 7% of Americans—over 23 million people—still lack access to broadband infrastructure meeting minimum speed benchmarks, disproportionately in rural and Tribal areas. But even where networks reach, many households remain unconnected.

Why? Because service affordability, data caps, credit checks, device compatibility, and installation costs still block the on-ramp. A fiber-optic line down the street doesn’t mean a low-income tenant in a multi-unit building can get online.

When broadband access is treated as a one-time technical deployment issue, systemic socioeconomic factors remain unaddressed. Moving toward a continuum model of broadband affordability requires unpacking these layered barriers—because wiring a home doesn’t guarantee connection.

Beyond Thresholds: The Case for a Continuum Model of Broadband Affordability

The static approach to broadband affordability—where a household either qualifies for subsidies or not—overlooks the dynamic nature of digital need, usage, and financial capacity. A continuum model redefines affordability not as a fixed point, but as a range shaped by diverse socioeconomic pressures and shifting technological demands.

What Defines a Continuum Model?

Rather than binary eligibility criteria, a continuum model integrates graduated levels of affordability. Households are positioned along a scale that reflects varying degrees of socioeconomic vulnerability, broadband dependency, and cost burden. This model accounts for:

For instance, a family earning just above the standard federal poverty guideline might still spend over 5% of its monthly income on broadband—exceeding the FCC’s previous 2% affordability benchmark. Under a continuum model, this household doesn’t fall through the cracks; rather, its affordability pressure is explicitly captured in policy design.

Integrating Economic and Broadband Usage Indicators

Data-driven modeling anchors the continuum approach. Key indicators include:

By layering these data points, planners can map the affordability terrain with precision rather than assumption. A household doesn’t become digitally included simply by having a connection; speeds too low for video conferencing or consistent latency can render that access incomplete.

Pushing for Equity in Connectivity

Not all households face the same costs for connectivity, nor do they experience the same consequences from lack of access. A continuum model directly acknowledges this variability. It opens space for:

What’s the social cost of doing nothing? When connectivity remains treated as a binary possession—connected or not—we ignore a wide middle ground where households are under-connected. The continuum model exposes that middle, giving policymakers the tools to address it with targeted nuance rather than blanket assumptions.

Low-Income Households & Urban-Rural Disparities

Connectivity Gaps: Dense Cities vs. Dispersed Rural Areas

Urban and rural low-income communities experience affordability differently, shaped by stark contrasts in broadband infrastructure. In metropolitan zones, providers often invest in high-speed networks due to population density, resulting in broader coverage and faster speeds. However, cost remains a barrier for many low-income households, not availability.

In rural communities, the issue shifts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reported in its 2021 Broadband Deployment Report that 17% of rural Americans lacked access to broadband at minimum standard speeds (25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload), compared to just 1% in urban areas. Low population density disincentivizes provider investment, making physical availability a major obstacle. Even when service is technically available, latency and reliability fall short of standard urban performance.

Local Programming: Access vs. Adoption

Programs created to enhance digital inclusion often diverge in design—and impact—based on location. Cities tend to benefit from a dense network of local institutions offering subsidized access, workshops, and support services. Libraries, housing authorities, and municipal digital equity offices host these programs, yet uptake remains patchy due to skepticism or limited outreach. In 2022, Pew Research found that only 43% of eligible low-income households had enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program, even in high-coverage urban zones.

In contrast, rural programming faces logistical constraints. Fewer public Wi-Fi hubs, longer travel distances to access digital assistance, and minimal competition among ISPs limit the viability of broad-based solutions. Outreach rarely matches the fragmented reality of rural life, leading to mismatches between available aid and actual connectivity patterns.

Statistical Realities: Mapping the Disparity

Urban-rural and income-based disparities intersect, compounding the challenge. A flat model of affordability doesn’t reflect the real geography of disadvantage. Getting broadband into everyone's hands isn't only about lowering prices; it's also about meeting households where they are—geographically, economically, and socially.

Assessing How Federal and State Broadband Subsidies Stack Up

Current Landscape: The Affordable Connectivity Program and Other Initiatives

The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), administered by the FCC, offers eligible households a discount of up to $30 per month toward internet service—and up to $75 per month for those on qualifying Tribal lands. In addition, it provides a one-time discount of up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet when certain conditions are met.

As of Q1 2024, over 22 million households have enrolled in ACP. The program follows the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB), which launched during the COVID-19 pandemic and transitioned into ACP in January 2022. On the state level, additional subsidies, public-private partnerships, and grants complement federal efforts, though the design and scope vary widely by jurisdiction. Programs like California’s CPUC Broadband Adoption Account and New York’s Affordable Housing Connect demonstrate localized approaches tailored to community contexts.

Numbers vs. Outcomes: Enrollment Is Not Equal to Adoption

While sign-ups for ACP seem promising, the actual adoption and sustained utilization reveal a more complex picture. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center report, only 53% of eligible households are aware of the ACP, and of those aware, less than 40% complete the enrollment process. Awareness barriers, confusing application requirements, and limited communication strategies prevent broader uptake.

The Benton Institute’s 2023 evaluation found that in regions with high poverty rates, adoption of ACP benefits lags behind national averages. For instance, in Mississippi and West Virginia, enrollment rates are under 30% of eligible households despite having some of the lowest median incomes and highest rates of broadband disconnection. The gap between availability of aid and actual onboarding highlights structural and informational inefficiencies.

Design Flaws and Targeting Gaps in Existing Programs

Most current broadband subsidy programs apply a binary threshold—either a household qualifies or it doesn’t. This cliff-effect approach fails to address the nuanced financial pressures across the low-income spectrum. For example, a household earning just above the federal poverty guideline may be ineligible for assistance, yet still unable to afford consistent, high-speed internet service.

Moreover, subsidies are often uniform rather than need-sensitive. A $30 discount has vastly different implications in an urban setting with multiple service providers than it does in a rural county with only one—and often more expensive—broadband option. A 2022 GAO report identified this lack of cost-adjusted targeting as a major factor in unequal program efficacy.

Language accessibility, digital literacy, and lack of trusted intermediaries also limit the reach of program messaging. Non-English-speaking households and those without prior internet access face more hurdles during onboarding—yet current frameworks rarely provide parallel support structures for these populations.

What would happen if subsidies were dynamically scaled, responsive to market conditions, and transparent in their eligibility logic? Such questions point directly toward a more adaptive, continuum-based approach to broadband affordability that aligns support with actual need and circumstance.

The Hidden Costs of Connectivity

Beyond the Monthly Bill: A Breakdown of Non-Obvious Expenses

Affording broadband goes well beyond paying for a service plan. For low-income households, the actual cost of getting online multiplies quickly through ancillary charges. Hardware is often the first major barrier. A functioning device—computer, tablet, or smartphone—becomes a prerequisite, yet market data from Pew Research Center (2021) shows that only 59% of adults in households earning less than $30,000 own a desktop or laptop computer. This purchase alone can account for a week's wages in minimum-wage jobs.

Installation fees and monthly charges typically dominate pricing discussions, but these figures rarely capture the full landscape. Many service providers require equipment rentals, subscriber activation costs, or security deposits. For instance, modem and router rental fees can add $10–$15 per month, inflating the advertised price significantly. Automated credit checks, often buried in fine print, introduce additional complexity—low credit scores can block access entirely or prompt inflated deposits.

Service Doesn’t Stop at Sign-up: The Support Gap

After installation, households must maintain the connection. When service interruptions or technical issues arise, accessing customer support can lead to indirect costs. Long support call wait times, complex troubleshooting, or even the need to hire third-party support specialists penalize users without technical literacy or spare time. These invisible expenses disproportionately affect elderly users and those without prior experience navigating digital platforms.

The Social Price of Digital Isolation

Connectivity gaps trigger deep social consequences. When children lack internet access, their capacity to complete homework, participate in virtual classrooms, or even access digital learning tools becomes restricted. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2021), 14% of students in households earning below the poverty threshold lacked home internet access—cutting them off from core curriculum delivery channels.

Healthcare delivery increasingly depends on online platforms. Telemedicine appointments, digital patient portals, and insurance enrollment systems create silent barriers for those disconnected. This forces individuals to rely on overcrowded in-person services or forgo timely care. The digital divide here plays directly into health disparities, compounding other geographic and economic inequities.

Long-Term Economic Friction

Lack of broadband access limits job-seeking capacity. Job applications, resume uploading, virtual interviews, and remote work rely on consistent internet availability. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022) noted that telework options were available for nearly 37% of jobs, yet uptake skewed heavily toward higher-income brackets. Without sustained connectivity, low-income households are locked out of this evolving labor market segment.

Children raised without reliable broadband often fall behind in digital literacy and STEM exposure. As these early gaps widen, they cascade into diminished academic performance and narrower post-secondary opportunities. That trajectory becomes financially consequential over time, robbing communities of future economic potential.

Building the Infrastructure for Inclusion

Reengineering Policy and Physical Networks

Expanding broadband access begins with strategic infrastructure investments. Deploying high-speed internet to underserved communities—particularly in rural and low-income urban areas—requires both capital and coordinated planning. According to the Federal Communications Commission’s 2023 Broadband Deployment Report, nearly 14.5 million Americans still lack access to fixed terrestrial broadband at benchmark speeds, with the majority residing in rural counties.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) allocated $65 billion to broadband expansion, marking the largest federal commitment to internet infrastructure to date. These funds are being channeled through programs like the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, which provides states with block grants to deploy affordable networks where private ISPs have not.

However, physical networks alone won't achieve full inclusion. Policy design determines whether networks yield public benefit. For instance, failure to enforce open access requirements can lead to monopolistic pricing in newly connected areas, defeating affordability goals.

Municipal Broadband and Public-Private Models

Municipal broadband services are demonstrating how local control can directly impact affordability. Cities like Chattanooga, Tennessee, have constructed city-run fiber networks offering gigabit speeds at competitive prices. Operated by the Electric Power Board (EPB), Chattanooga’s service covers more than 150,000 customers and has contributed to regional economic growth while maintaining equitable access.

Meanwhile, public-private partnerships (PPPs) offer an alternative when full municipal ownership isn’t feasible. These models enable cities to provide critical infrastructure—such as fiber backbones, duct systems, or pole access—while leveraging private ISPs to deliver last-mile service. In Westminster, Maryland, the city owns the fiber and leases it to a private provider, ensuring public oversight while tapping into private-sector efficiency.

Local Governments as Catalysts for Equity

City and county governments have unique proximity to digital exclusion. They manage education systems, libraries, and social services—each deeply affected by connectivity gaps. This granular perspective positions them to orchestrate interventions no national policy can fully replicate.

Some localities are diverging from traditional procurement and adopting digital inclusion master plans. San Antonio, for example, released a Digital Inclusion Plan outlining strategies that blend capital projects, public education, and affordability targets. The plan sets specific metrics around device access, language accessibility, and cost thresholds, situating broadband as one piece of a larger accessibility equation.

Others are leveraging zoning regulations to enforce broadband-ready construction in multi-dwelling units or requiring ISPs to offer low-cost service tiers to qualify for new deployment permits. These mechanisms force structural inclusion instead of relying on voluntary industry compliance.

When cities act as infrastructure owners, policy designers, and ecosystem conveners, they shift the broadband paradigm from scarcity to structural equity. The transition relies not just on laying fiber—but on laying a foundation for systemic inclusion.

Designing a Continuum Affordability Framework

Moving Beyond Flat Rate Subsidies

One-size-fits-all broadband subsidies ignore the complexity of cost burdens faced by low-income households. A continuum affordability framework replaces static thresholds with nuanced solutions that account for income variability, geography, and service availability. At its core, the model adapts to fluctuating needs rather than assigning fixed support levels.

Flexible Pricing Models Aligned with Household Income

Slide-scale pricing aligns monthly broadband costs directly with verified household income bands. Instead of setting a blanket discount, this approach calibrates subsidies based on the cost-to-income ratio. For example, if internet service and device costs exceed 5% of monthly income, targeted credits could bring the net expense below that threshold.

Localizing Policy Through Region-Specific Cost and Access Data

Urban density, rural remoteness, and regional provider monopolies inject location-based disparities into broadband access. A continuum model incorporates granular, ZIP-code-level variables—like availability of fiber networks, provider competition, and median household income—to establish regionally indexed affordability guidelines.

Embedding Digital Inclusion Services Into Affordability Programs

Affordability without digital competency results in underuse. For a continuum model to truly deliver equitable access, it must couple pricing relief with support structures. These range from digital navigators and device recycling programs to localized tech support and community-led education engagements.

Collaborative Roles Across Sectors

No single actor can architect an adaptive affordability model at scale. Telecommunications providers, state and federal agencies, school districts, and grassroots organizations must align objectives, share data infrastructure, and hold each other accountable.

Using Data to Fuel Responsive Policies

Static eligibility protocols lag behind present-day needs. The continuum model uses real-time datasets to inform program adjustments, identify drop-off points, and monitor affordability trends across demographics.

Mobilizing Change: Uniting Policy, Program Design, and Social Innovation

Broadband affordability will not shift meaningfully without concerted effort across public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Fragmented interventions cannot address a complex affordability landscape spanning geography, income volatility, and digital literacy. Instead, these sectors must align within a continuum model that adapts to the lived realities of low-income households.

Unifying Strategies Within a Dynamic Affordability Spectrum

Policy, subsidy, and service design need integration, not isolation. A continuum model requires:

When these forces operate along a shared spectrum—rather than in static silos—they accommodate the dynamic needs of users whose broadband access rises and falls with their economic circumstances. This model replaces uniform eligibility cliffs with transitional supports and scaled benefits.

Recognizing the Role of Digital Connectivity in Socioeconomic Mobility

High-speed internet has ceased to be a luxury. It now anchors access to education, work, healthcare, government services, and social participation. The migration from analog to digital systems has already transformed how society functions—broadband access determines whether households are full participants or invisible from opportunity.

Policies must reflect this transformation. Any gap in digital access compounds existing inequalities. Left unaddressed, connectivity deserts continue to isolate families from essential economic lifelines and civic engagement pathways.

Cross-Sector Collaboration as the Engine of Equity

Solutions grounded in single-sector responses face limited reach. Lasting affordability reforms emerge when state agencies coordinate with tech firms, internet providers with social service networks, and local governments co-design subsidy models with the very communities they aim to serve.

In high-poverty areas, this model opens new ground. A continuum model, properly implemented, neutralizes affordability barriers at the point of service rather than forcing households to navigate layers of eligibility and enrollment complexity.

The call to action is not just about increasing bandwidth—it's about synchronizing policies, reallocating public investment pragmatically, and focusing technological innovation on resilience and accessibility.

Redefining Access: A Continuum Approach to Broadband, Equity, and Opportunity

Static definitions of affordability no longer align with the realities experienced by low-income households navigating the digital landscape. Housing costs fluctuate. Job markets shift. Family needs evolve. Yet eligibility thresholds and subsidy formulas often remain tethered to rigid annual income brackets or outdated census data. A continuum model of broadband affordability acknowledges that economic hardship exists on a spectrum, and so must support systems.

Framing broadband access as a continuum means treating it less as a one-time intervention and more as a scalable, adaptive utility service—similar to how energy, water, or transportation subsidies adjust based on user need. This model would flex with income volatility, geographic disparity, family composition, and digital literacy, integrating both material and structural considerations. Low-income broadband access cannot be one-size-fits-all.

Consider this: a household that earns just over the federal poverty line may still struggle to afford $50-per-month broadband in a market dominated by limited providers. Under current systems, they might not qualify for programs like ACP or Lifeline. A continuum model expands this equation, ensuring that access doesn’t suddenly disappear the moment a household crosses an arbitrary line.

Reimagining broadband as a public utility—with frameworks of equity as foundational design principles—would reposition connectivity as a default right, not an economic gamble. This view opens the door to tiered pricing models, dynamic subsidies, and community-owned networks that prioritize service over shareholder margins.

Millions of Americans remain disconnected not by choice, but by structural omission. Blanket policies won’t resolve fragmented realities. However, restructuring affordability as a moving target—mapped against real-time economic, geographic, and technological variables—brings digital inclusion policy into alignment with lived conditions.

A digitally equitable society doesn’t emerge from sporadic interventions. It emerges from infrastructure designed to endure complexity, policies built to reflect diversity in need, and public investment steered toward inclusion. To achieve genuine economic and social equity, broadband must function not as a luxury commodity but as foundational infrastructure—reliable, adaptable, and accessible to all, regardless of ZIP code or credit score.

The payoff isn’t abstract. It’s measurable in graduation rates, job placements, telehealth outcomes, and civic participation. Broadband is no longer optional. It’s a precondition for full participation in modern society. Transitioning to a continuum model doesn’t complicate the solution—it brings it in line with reality.