American Enterprise Institute

Assessing Broadband Affordability Initiatives

The basic tenet of universal internet service—that the government should assist those who cannot afford basic access to the network—has long been a cornerstone of American telecommunications policy. Unfortunately, it is far from clear whether Lifeline, the federal program tasked with getting low-income households online, actually addresses this problem. The recently enacted Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) threatens to compound Lifeline’s errors. The advent of ACP provides a unique opportunity to rethink our approach to broadband affordability initiatives.

Reconsidering the E-Rate Program

E-Rate is the forgotten child of the universal service family. While commentators and Congress have spilled significant ink examining the government’s broadband build-out and affordability initiatives, E-Rate has been quietly subsidizing broadband service to schools and libraries for a quarter century. Promoting community connectivity and education is a worthwhile policy goal.

Supreme Court Funding Case May Affect Universal Service Fund

The Universal Service Fund is funded  by a quarterly surcharge on interstate and international telecommunications revenue. Each quarter, a private nonprofit known as the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) estimates how much money it needs to fund the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) myriad universal service initiatives. It also estimates the amount of telecommunications revenue expected to be generated by industry, and from there calculates the surcharge percentage necessary to cover program costs.

Assessing Broadband Affordability Initiatives

Reducing the broadband affordability gap is an important and noble goal. Unfortunately, it is far from clear whether Lifeline, the federal program tasked with getting low-income households online, actually addresses this problem. For over a decade, academics, government watchdogs, and independent auditors have criticized the Federal Communications Commission’s inability or unwillingness to measure the program’s effectiveness—while private studies suggest much of this spending may be misdirected toward families at no risk of losing internet access.