Universal Service Fund

The Federal Communications Commission released an 8-page document outlining "A Year of Action and Accomplishment" led by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, broken down into the following categories: bridging the digital divide, promoting innovation and investment, protecting consumers and enhancing public safety, transparency and process reforms, and cutting and modernizing outdated regulations. 

Some Democratic members of the House Commerce Committee have asked the Government Accountability Office to "review" the Federal Communications Commission's efforts to deploy the Lifeline National Verifier, which is meant to be a more efficient way to monitor who gets the Lifeline Universal Service Fund subsidies and make sure they are eligible for the money.

The Federal Communications Commission has extended the deadline for public comments in its Lifeline proceeding. Comments now due January 17, 2018; reply comments due February 21, 2018.

Since Chairman Ajit Pai took over the leadership of the Federal Communications Commission, he has emphasized that one of his main goals has been to “close the digital divide and bring the benefits of the Internet age to all Americans.” So it comes as no surprise that the FCC has taken several measures recently to overhaul the Lifeline program under the tagline “Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers.” The November changes to the Lifeline Program were mainly cutbacks; reducing available subsidies, as well as limiting eligible participants and carriers.

House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) announced a third series of bills introduced by subcommittee members on expanding broadband infrastructure in rural America. The bills aim to advance broadband deployment in disaster areas, as well as support innovation and remove obstacles to expansion.

[Commentary] With an upcoming Federal Communications Commission vote on whether cellphone data speeds are fast enough for work, entertainment and other online activities, Americans face a choice: Is modest-speed internet appropriate for rural areas, or do rural Americans deserve access to the far faster service options available in urban areas?

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission estimated in 2017 that to deploy high-speed broadband to 98 percent of American homes, it would cost $40 billion. For 100 percent, the cost doubles. Which is why greater broadband infrastructure funding — both public and private — is urgently needed in remote areas, where the cost of connectivity infrastructure remains extreme.

Federal Communications Commission rural broadband funding could increase by over $500 million if the commission votes to adopt an order circulated by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. The the funding would include about $180 million for the current funding year for the nation’s smaller rate-of-return (ROR) carriers who get their support through traditional legacy mechanisms and up to $360 million over the next 10 years to ROR carriers who receive support based on the FCC's Alternative-Connect America Cost Mode (A-CAM). The $500 million would come, in part, from reserves.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai shared with his fellow commissioners an order to promote more high-speed broadband deployment in rural areas. If adopted, it would provide over $500 million in additional funding for cooperatives and small rural carriers. The order would also put in place strong new rules to prevent abuse of the high-cost program.

For many low-income Americans, internet connectivity is a struggle. About half (53%) of those in households with annual incomes under $30,000 have a home broadband internet subscription plan, compared with 93% of households whose annual incomes exceed $75,000. This makes closing connectivity gaps a priority for policymakers, the non-profit sector, and many internet service providers (ISPs). What is perhaps less appreciated is the variety of models that have arisen to try to reach those without broadband at home. The population of non-home broadband users is not monolithic.