The committee heard testimony in support of House Bill 101, which would require free broadband internet access in public housing and classify broadband as a basic part of a "decent, safe and sanitary" dwelling.

Pamela Goodwin, who testified for public housing broadband advocacy groups, said that high‑speed internet is "no longer a luxury" and described how residents without reliable service face obstacles applying for jobs, accessing telehealth and completing schoolwork. Steven Larrick, digital manager for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), described completed pilot projects in Chelsea, Revere and Quincy that provide free apartment Wi‑Fi and said cost is the main barrier in Massachusetts. MAPC cited a MassINC study estimating roughly 160,000 public‑housing units statewide and reported an upfront wiring cost estimate in mid‑hundreds of millions (witnesses quoted a MassINC figure of about $160 million to $200 million for wiring), with ongoing operational costs in the low tens of millions per year (witnesses cited figures around $19 million per year in one estimate).

Larrick said Massachusetts’ digital divide is driven primarily by affordability rather than infrastructure availability and pointed to federal BEAD funding and the state MassBroadband Institute as mechanisms to ensure curb‑side connectivity in previously unserved areas. He said public housing sites are often designated as community anchor institutions and can be prioritized for federal funding for last‑mile connections; H101 would address on‑site access and ongoing service costs.

Lawmakers asked practical questions about wiring costs, ongoing monthly operations, and the status of curb‑side broadband availability. Larrick said that many public‑housing sites already have at least one provider to the curb and that federal BEAD funds prioritize unserved locations; he estimated per‑unit ongoing operational costs in pilots at approximately $30 per unit per month but said costs could be lower with alternative technology choices.

Supporters framed the bill as an investment in education and health and urged a favorable report. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing.