A Path for Mobility Fund Phase II?

Federal Communications Commission leadership recently indicated that we will issue final rules for a new mobile-only universal service subsidy program by the end of 2016. While I remain greatly skeptical about the timing and value of doing so, given our experiences and the changes that have occurred over the past five years, it seems reasonable that if we are going to have this fund it must be structured and operated far better than today’s wireless universal service fund (USF) spending. We owe it to those Americans that could benefit from a functionally-sound program and, more importantly, to those consumers and businesses that pay for our universal service programs.

Since it appears that the purpose and structure of the program are still up for discussion and debate, I am putting forth some key elements that will guide my review of any reform. Without addressing most, if not all, of these points, it is hard to see how a unanimous, bipartisan vote can be achieved:

1. Prohibit Overlap & Target Support – It makes no sense to subsidize a wireless carrier in an area that has another unsubsidized competitor.
2. Subsidize Only One Carrier – Assuming we can get funding targeted to where it is needed, we should not fund multiple carriers to serve the same area.
3. Phase Out Current Support – Some existing recipients of funds under the current wireless program argue that without continued subsidies, they may have to turn off certain unprofitable towers. This has been labelled the “Rusty Tower” problem. Much of this territory, however, is already covered by multiple 4G carriers.
4. Populations, Not Roads – In determining areas that remain unserved, the Commission has traditionally targeted population areas. This makes complete sense as we are trying to serve where people actually live, work and function. The alternative discussed of funding road areas leads to huge outlays for tiny portions of mainly unused roads and represents an inefficient use of funds. In the end, this may mean that not every single square inch of America receives wireless signals.
5. Providers Must Offer Broadband – Currently, wireless carriers receiving existing support under the old program have few real service obligations. This is no longer tolerable. Every USF program that has been reformed recently has installed requirements for subsidy recipients to offer broadband of certain capabilities. Wireless carriers under a Mobility Fund Phase II should be no different.
6. Finish Remote Areas Fund (RAF) – I would prefer to address the RAF in conjunction with creating the Mobility Fund Phase II. If that isn’t in the cards, the Commission needs to at least consider interaction between RAF and Mobility Fund Phase II when adopting Mobility Fund Phase II rules.