Joe Kane
How to Fund Universal Broadband Service Without the Universal Service Fund
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw federal broadband policy into chaos recently by declaring the Universal Service Fund unconstitutional. The decision threatens to shut down the Federal Communications Commission’s longstanding system of collecting fees from telecommunications customers to subsidize rural broadband deployment and Internet access for low-income households, schools, and other programs. For years, policymakers have acknowledged the need to overhaul the USF because of its ballooning fees, potential for waste, and outdated priorities.
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/itif_37.png?itok=5HChkwWN)
Good and Bad Reasons for Allocating Spectrum to Licensed, Unlicensed, Shared, and Satellite Uses
Policymakers inundated with self-serving arguments for specific spectrum allocation need ways to evaluate which actually advance the public interest. By focusing on the goal of productive spectrum use, one can differentiate between reasoning that would enhance productivity and that which would only advance private interests.
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/itif_36.png?itok=AzQl3g8X)
Sustain Affordable Connectivity By Ending Obsolete Broadband Programs
New broadband funding programs necessitate dramatic reforms to old programs. In its report, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) recommends reversing the status quo and sustaining the Affordable Connectivity Program by shrinking the redundant hodgepodge of federal broadband programs. With so much at stake, it is more important than ever to ensure that broadband funding helps those who need it, and the right programs are sustainable. ITIF says that as things now stand, federal broadband programs are dangerously out of balance.
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/ITIF%20Logo2_3.jpg?itok=Hy-fR7UK)
Filling Gaps in US Spectrum Allocation: Reforms for Collaborative Management
With the rapid rise of wireless technology, the demand for access to the spectrum has increased in recent years. However, there are critical and interrelated gaps and failures in the process and policies used for efficiently allocating the spectrum in the US. Key takeaways from an analysis on this issue include the following:
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/itif_35.png?itok=RaghghJm)
Comments to the FCC Regarding Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provides the federal government with the resources necessary to close the digital divide based on lack of service in certain geographic areas and make broadband available to all Americans. ITIF appreciates this opportunity to comment on how the Federal Communications Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking should implement the provisions of the IIJA related to purported “digital discrimination.” The FCC’s primary goal in this rulemaking should be adherence to the text of the statute and to close the digital divide.
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/ITIF%20Logo2_2.jpg?itok=fMJkQj6e)
Building on Uncle Sam’s “Beachfront” Spectrum: Six Ways to Align Incentives to Make Better Use of the Airwaves
The federal government’s use of spectrum dates back to the beginning when radio frequencies were used to communicate—and so does the policy question of how to apportion spectrum access between government and private uses. The federal government has important missions that require the use of the electromagnetic spectrum. But federal spectrum lacks market discipline and profit motives, so it does not tend toward efficient use. Six proposals to improve upon this include the following:
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/ITIF%20Logo2_1.jpg?itok=gVprshQJ)
Is US Broadband Service Slow?
Opponents of the current private-sector-provided broadband system have long engaged in a campaign to convince people that US broadband is deficient. Critics malign the quality of US broadband networks by claiming the speeds are too slow. But the question of speed is deceptively complex since there is general confusion over what constitutes “fast” broadband.
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/ITIF%20Logo2_0.jpg?itok=5KiHTww7)
Consumers Are the Ones Who End Up Paying for Sending-Party-Pays Mandates
Policymakers in the US and other nations have begun to consider, and in some cases implement, policies that seek to get edge companies—those who produce and send content to end users over the Internet—to pay a larger share of the cost to build and maintain Internet service providers’ (ISPs’) broadband network infrastructure.
![](https://www.benton.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/ITIF%20Logo2.jpg?itok=itx2jns_)
Why We Should Stop Worrying and Learn to Love Spectrum Windfalls
Many attempts to increase the flexibility of wireless spectrum rights meet objections that the method of reallocation will result in a windfall for corporate license holders. Far from being objectionable, however, allowing windfalls in spectrum reallocation creates virtuous incentives. Past restrictions on the supply of flexible-use rights to the spectrum have resulted in a rigid system, which is not in the public interest because the most productive uses of the spectrum change rapidly.
Five Principles for Spectrum Policy: A Primer for Policymakers
Spectrum policy takes engineering and technical realities as inputs to a decision-making process that is driven by normative principles. While many competing principles have had their heyday, these five are enduring guides to making spectrum work in the public interest: