Court case

NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association is releasing the results of a survey it conducted of members on how the potential disruption of Universal Service Fund (USF) support could affect rural consumers, broadband investment in rural America, and the viability of existing rural broadband networks. The survey was conducted in August 2024 following a July decision finding the system for contributions to the federal USF unconstitutional and remanding the matter to the Federal Communications Commission. Significant findings include: 

Two very real Universal Service Fund (USF) problems need to be addressed: funding and spending. The way the program is funded is inefficient, unsustainable, and regressive. Regardless of the judicial outcome, the tax that the court declared unconstitutional is both inefficient, by taxing a small, price-sensitive, declining base, and regressive, with a higher proportional burden falling on those least able to afford it. The program spends too much money on the wrong things. The High Cost Fund in particular, which accounts for about half of total spending, is outdated and wasteful.

The Philadelphia-based Third U.S.

Rural areas, low-income communities and individuals, and racial and ethnic minorities still often have less access to quality, affordable broadband.

The D.C. District court announced its decision in U.S. v.

In issuing a temporary stay of the Federal Communications Commission 2024 Net Neutrality order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has gone beyond recent teachings of the Supreme Court to erroneously block exercise of regulatory authority that Congress clearly intended the FCC to exercise. From the Federal Reserve Board to the Federal Trade Commission and beyond, expert agencies have been created as a means for Congress to ensure that durable legislative principles keep up with the times. The current Supreme Court seems not to share that view.

In May 2023, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the minority leader of the Senate Commerce Committee, sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting an examination of how the Federal Communications Commission administers the Universal Service Fund (USF). The USF consists of money collected from telecommunications companies that is dedicated to fulfilling the goals of universal service.

On July 18, 2024, Members of the House of Representatives wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel to call her attention to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a recent Supreme Court decision that precludes courts from deferring to agency interpretations when the statutes are ambiguous. [See a similar letter from the Senate's Post-Chevron Working Group.] In its decision, the Court explicitly overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.

Facebook, X, YouTube and other social media platforms rely on a 1996 law to insulate themselves from legal liability for user posts. The protection from this law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is so significant that it has allowed tech companies to flourish. But what if the same law could be used to rein in the power of those social media giants? That idea is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in May against Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

The cable industry's policy people are working through a smorgasbord of issues, including surprise litigation tied to the Universal Service Fund, a temporary stay on the return of network neutrality rules, tricky nuances tied to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program, and even the recent temporary injunction slapped on Venu, a new sports streaming service. Yet another challenge: a US Supreme Court decision in June that