Maryland lawmakers want affordable broadband, and they are willing to control the market to get it. But what proponents of the newly-introduced Broadband Opportunity and Fairness Act fail to recognize is that affordability is well on its way, thanks to state-level regulatory reforms and national market dynamics. Lawmakers should not try to skip to the end by imposing rigid rate regulations.
Maryland’s Broadband Opportunity and Fairness Act is a solution in search of a problem. The bill requires all major internet service providers (ISPs) to offer a low-cost plan by the end of the year or else sell their network capacity to a provider that will. But robust provider competition has already pushed prices down. And many prudent regulatory reforms, like streamlined permitting and improved access to poles, have also already helped clear the path to even lower prices. Such heavy-handed strategies are counterproductive and will likely ultimately harm Maryland consumers in the long run. Maryland should practice patience and let already existing market dynamics keep driving prices down instead.
The heavy-handed bill would require all ISPs with more than 10k customers to offer a low-cost broadband plan for eligible households, but the bill does not define low-cost, effectively leaving regulators an open door to impose whatever price they want as long as they can get approval from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), increasing uncertainty for ISPs. The bill also sets up a new Broadband Affordability Advisory Board and expects ISPs to file annual compliance reports, which increases the cost of doing business in the state. To top it all off, any ISP unable to comply by December of 2026 must sell its network capacity to a provider who can. With these statutes threatening to increase costs for businesses through uncertainty, paperwork schemes, and forced sales of network access, ISPs would necessarily increase prices on non-low-income customers, creating distortionary burdens across the Maryland market. Rules as heavy-handed as this are bound to backfire on consumers who need reliable internet service.
A stable internet connection opens new opportunities for consumers in employment, education, healthcare, and generally staying connected to loved ones. That’s why Maryland spent years leveraging grants to build high-speed infrastructure and reduce barriers to deployment. Today, in its final proposal for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, the state seeks further cost-saving measures through regulatory reform. Specifically, collaborating with state and local agencies to streamline permitting, working with local communities to improve access to poles and conduits, and promoting lower-cost construction techniques. Each of these can provide lasting regulatory changes that help keep maintenance costs low, meaning fewer costs and lower consumer prices.
While the state has already built out near-complete coverage—99.5 percent, according to the state’s final proposal for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program—it is also on the right track to universal broadband adoption through more affordable prices. The percentage of Marylanders who cite internet prices as their biggest deterrent has declined over the years, from 28.4 percent in 2013 to 12.3 percent in 2023, according to data from the NTIA. Affordability is becoming less of a concern among Maryland consumers—and will likely continue to drop as prices fall further.
Maryland’s progress dovetails nicely with national trends. At the national scale, broadband prices, adjusted for inflation, have fallen year over year. Between 2015 and 2023, the most popular speed tiers saw price reductions as much as 54.7 percent. Over the same period, the communications services industry saw breakthroughs in competing technologies like fiber optics, fixed wireless access, and low-earth orbit satellite, putting new pressure on incumbent cable providers to improve service, cut prices, or lose customers. With more options than ever for consumers to choose from, ISPs have raced to offer the lowest prices they can. As a 2025 report found, the current net profit margin for ISPs is only 7 percent on average, indicating that “even if all profit were competed away, broadband prices would fall by only 7 percent.”
When prices are already declining nationally, and fewer Marylanders need help paying for internet service, lawmakers’ proposal to set prices is unnecessary and impatient. If a business environment as hostile as the one Maryland is threatening were to become law, it should be unsurprising if ISPs decide to avoid it entirely and stop competing in the state.
Take New York’s Affordable Broadband Act, for example. It requires ISPs to offer $15-20 monthly plans for speeds no slower than 25 Mbps, a much lower expectation than Maryland’s law, which requires 100 Mbps for small households and twice that for large homes. However, after New York’s law went into effect, AT&T pulled its 5G Internet Air service from New York, leaving only its mobile service and fewer competitors in the home internet market.
If the New York market had consolidated naturally through mergers and acquisitions, rather than as a product of government intervention, consumers would have enjoyed ISPs’ greater economies of scale, where reduced costs would flow to consumers. Lower prices are made possible by underlying transformations in the market along the way—not by government mandate or forced sales. But because New York skipped the market dynamics and jumped straight to lower prices, none of the in-between steps happened, leaving low-cost consumers worse off than if the legislators had never intervened in the first place. Similar troubles may be in Maryland’s future.
Ultimately, there is no reason to destroy a good thing. Maryland is already in a good place. Broadband deployment is near-universal. Prices have been steadily declining. And more options are creating more market competition. Thanks to reforms being made as part of the BEAD program, cost savings in building and maintenance could continually reach consumers’ wallets, making broadband even more affordable in the coming years. Maryland should resist the urge to skip over market dynamics with price controls. Such a strategy is short-sighted and risks harming more consumers than it’s meant to relieve.
Nate Karren is a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. Follow Nate on X @NateKarrenOnX.