Universal Service Fund

On Friday, May 31, the Federal Communications Commission launched a proceeding to seek comment on establishing an overall cap on the Universal Service Fund (USF). USF programs provide subsidies that make telecommunications and broadband services more available and affordable for millions of Americans. The NPRM asks a lot of questions over how to cap the programs. But a crucial one we ask: Does this NPRM actually move the U.S. closer to closing the digital divide?

The Federal Communications Commission has preliminarily voted to cap spending on the FCC's Universal Service programs, which deploy broadband to poor people and to rural and other underserved areas. The recent approval of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary step—the FCC will take public comment on Chairman Ajit Pai's plan for three months before moving to a final vote. The FCC technically won't begin the public-comment period until after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register, but the FCC proceeding's docket is online.

The FCC’s proposal to adopt an overall cap on the USF is unfortunate, counter-productive and contrary to congressional intent. Congress directed the FCC to make ‘sufficient’ funding available to meet our nation’s universal service goals, not to prohibit spending that is necessary to reach those goals.

NTCA believes the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to impose an additional cap atop all of the collective universal service programs is unnecessary and contrary to the statutory design of the programs. When Congress called for creation of these programs in 1996, it directed that each of these mechanisms should have sufficient funding.

The FCC once again proves that Friday is "take out the trash day" in our national capital; its latest proposal is pure garbage. The questions we must ask are:

The FCC’s Universal Service programs are among the most significant “tools in the toolkit” possessed by the federal government to ensure that all Americans have access to voice and broadband services comparable to their fellow citizens. Considering both the success of [USF] programs and the FCC’s statutory mandate from Congress, a cap on the Universal Service program’s overall budget is not the right approach. The proposal would pit deserving beneficiaries—anchor institutions, students, patients, and Americans who lack broadband—against one another in a fight for Universal Service funds.

This is a rulemaking that proposes to limit universal service efforts at the Federal Communications Commission. It is fundamentally inconsistent with this agency’s high-minded rhetoric about closing the digital divide. It is also at odds with our most basic statutory duty to promote and advance universal service. That’s because it suggests a course that could cut off broadband in rural areas, limit high-speed internet access in rural classrooms, shorten the reach of telehealth, and foreclose opportunity for those who need it most.

In my years working on communications policy, I have been tremendously focused on improving the effectiveness of our Universal Service Fund programs to bring broadband Internet to those without access. Part and parcel of that mission is to ensure the USF’s sustainability for years to come, and to protect the hard-earned investments of consumers who pay for our subsidy programs.

The Federal Communications Commission seeks comment on establishing a cap on the Universal Service Fund and ways it could enable the FCC to evaluate the financial aspects of the four USF programs in a more holistic way, and thereby better achieve the overarching universal service principles Congress directed the FCC to preserve and advance. While each of the constituent USF programs are capped or operating under a targeted budget, the FCC has not examined the programs holistically to determine the most efficient and responsible use of these federal funds.

On March 28, 2019, Reps Yvette Clark (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Tony Cárdenas (D-CA), GK Butterfield (D-NC), Marc Veasey (D-TX), and Jerry McNerney (D-CA) wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai raising concerns as to the rollout of the Lifeline National Eligibility Verifier.