I recently testified at a Senate Communications Subcommittee Hearing in support of legislation to extend the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). After the hearing I received ten questions on my testimony about affordable broadband from Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX). The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society has kindly published my answers, which are much longer and more detailed than the usual answers to such questions.   

In this wrap-up, I want to summarize my answers and explain why I answered as I did.  The sad and simple truth is that the ACP, despite valiant efforts by many, is not likely to be extended by this Congress.  Further, whatever the fate of the multiple ACP extension legislation efforts, they are all short-term in impact.  We need Congress and the FCC to think about what our country is trying to accomplish long-term with the Universal Service Fund (USF) program.  Therefore, I wanted to provide answers that didn’t just address the ACP but also laid down some markers for the inevitable debate we must have about USF reform. 

I tried to stress above all else that Congress should skate where the puck is going, not where it is or where it was in the past. The metaphor is not mine, of course, it belongs to hockey great Wayne Gretzky trying to explain how his approach to the game differed from his peers.  But it has been a North Star to guide all of the successful policy initiatives I have been involved in.

Here are some of the key principles I hope underly the upcoming debate.

Skate where the puck is going

The best policy is forward-looking.  I could cite many examples but let me mention this one: When Netscape, in 1993, went public with its first browser, the soon-to-be FCC Chair Reed Hundt told me that everything that could go digital would go digital.  He meant not only voice and video but also education, health care, and many other functions, and we premised our policies on that understanding.  It has played out that way, which is why USF has had to adjust on several occasions and must do so again.¹ And it needs to do so to reflect the realities of the 2020s and 2030s, not the realities of the past.

Understand which functionalities we want to be universal 

All internet access is not the same.  Today, mobile access has some functionalities that fixed, in-home service does not, and vice versa.  As we debate USF, we need clarity on what functions we want all Americans to have and what must be done to enable those functionalities for all, everywhere.

Enable consumer choice and promote flexibility to drive market responses 

Conservatives like that ACP enables consumer flexibility and choice and in doing so, stimulates market forces to constantly improve the program.  While I don’t consider myself a conservative, my conversations with them have convinced me that flexibility and choice should be built into the universal service framework wherever possible.

Use universal broadband to improve the outcome of government programs and lower government costs 

Traditionally, all USF debates focus on two issues: How do we collect funds, and how do we spend them?  Those are both relevant today.

But there is now a third question that, in my mind, is the most important and underappreciated one: How do we use broadband to improve the outcome of government programs and lower costs? 

I hope the next Administration, whoever is in charge, understands that broadband is not just a telecommunications issue but is core to how every part of government does its job.² In other words, universal broadband opens the door for Health and Human Services, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, the Veterans Administration, among other federal departments, to improve their performance.

Accept that there are trade-offs but try to maximize the upside while trying to mitigate the downside 

A common mistake in public policy debates—but uncommon in the private sector where I have spent most of my career—is to see any negative consequence of a policy as a justification for ending the policy as opposed to viewing consequences through the lens of trade-offs. I hope that those formulating the new USF framework understand the trade-offs. Nothing is perfect. We should act to maximize the upside while mitigating the downside. And we should be open to course corrections when we learn more, and new issues arise.

Don’t cherry-pick data; have an honest dialogue about how the data can inform a programmatic course correction 

During the hearing, and in the follow-up questions, there were numerous references to studies that suggested to me what is referred to as motivated reasoning: looking at the data to support a pre-existing conclusion rather than through an open-minded inquiry into what the studies can teach us about what works and what doesn’t. For example, conclusions about the ACP based on studies that don’t include data about the predecessor program, the Emergency Broadband Benefit, are likely to flawed. Another example is dismissing studies on multiple topics that do not include ACP data that are, in fact, very relevant to ACP. Is there any reason for thinking that savings on health care costs due to telehealth enjoyed by the general population and private insurance companies cannot be duplicated by ACP recipients and Medicaid? I am open to hearing the answer, but simply asserting that without ACP data, savings related to telehealth are not relevant to the debate strikes me as unwise.

At the end of the day, the right question is not what’s in it for one group or another but rather, what’s in it for all people in the United States  

While certain companies benefit from the ACP, the important principle to keep in mind involves how the entire country benefits from making sure that all people have access to certain necessities. President Franklin Roosevelt understood it in his time, noting that with one-third of the country ill-housed, ill-clad, and ill-nourished, the country needed to make “every American citizen the subject of his or her country’s interest and concern.”

Long before Roosevelt, others, such as Jesus and Moses, understood and preached the same principle.

Congress understood it in our time, funding rural broadband deployments and the ACP by noting how broadband is necessary for enabling “full participation in modern life in the United States.”  

The crafters of USF reform should keep that principle in mind. Indeed, it is the principle that has animated universal service since the first efforts—embodied in the 1913 Kingsbury Commitments—to promote telephone service reaching every part of the country.  Indeed, similar principles have motivated many of the most important and beneficial policies that our country has adopted to improve all our lives.

Let me close by thanking the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society for republishing my answers, the many friends and colleagues who assisted in correcting and improving my draft responses, the many readers who offered thoughts that improved my own thinking, and Senator Cruz and his staff for giving me the opportunity to address his concerns about ACP, as well as longer-term concerns about USF reform.  Whatever his motives, my 30-year history in the policy process convinces me that it is only by virtue of such give and take that better policies emerge.  And it is critical that as to the future of USF, better policies must emerge.

Notes

1. The two most significant readjustments were in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, in which USF had to adjust to a competitive framework, and in the early 2010’s, in the wake of the 2010 National Broadband Plan, when USF had to adjust to broadband being the dominant service.  Others were the main architects and deserve far more historic credit than they will ever receive, but I was in the room where it happened.  My viewpoint here reflects those experiences and my sense of how ideas and principles interact with data and administrative reality. 
2. The 2010 National Broadband Plan team spent half the document writing about this.  Ironically, but not surprisingly, the Department that appears to me to understand it best--the Department of Defense—was outside the scope of our mandate.

Blair Levin is the Policy Advisor to New Street Research and a nonresident senior fellow at Brookings Metro​. Prior to joining New Street, Blair served as Chief of Staff to FCC Chairman Reed Hundt (1993-1997), directed the writing of the United States National Broadband Plan (2009-2010), and was a policy analyst for the equity research teams at Legg Mason and Stifel Nicolaus. Levin is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2024. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities