Universal Service Fund

The National Lifeline Association challenged the Federal Communications Commission's November 2019 Lifeline order which restored the role of states in designating eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to participate in the Lifeline program, clarified the obligations of participating carriers, and took steps to improve compliance by Lifeline ETCs and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. The issue in this case concerns support payments to ETCs for prepaid Lifeline subscribers in cure periods because of their non-usage of the service.

The Federal Communications Commission is directing a group of mobile service providers to respond to a questionnaire about customer usage and costs. The responses of this group, encompassing a significant portion of the Lifeline marketplace by subscribership, will aid the development of the State of the Lifeline Marketplace Report. The FCC also expects this data to inform the policy choices before the FCC regarding the mobile broadband minimum service standards—standards established in 2016 and annually updated.

The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau directed the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to add to the Database of Urban and Rural Rates for the Telecommunications Program (Telecom Program Rates Database) rates for all funding requests committed since its launch.

The Federal Communications Commission announced a settlement with IBM for alleged violations of the FCC’s E-Rate program rules in connection with the New York City and El Paso school districts. IBM agreed to return $24.25 million to the Universal Service Fund. In past years, IBM provided communications services to the New York City Department of Education and the El Paso Independent School District in Texas using E-Rate subsidies.

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) has asked the Federal Communications Commission to reject efforts by West Virginia legislators to block Frontier Communications’ successful bid for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) funding. Frontier won $247 million to serve almost 79,000 locations in the state. It says that it will bring gigabit connectivity to many of those locations. The company is currently in bankruptcy, but expects to emerge in the first quarter of 2021.

Congress is set to pass a $900 billion Covid-19 aid bill. The legislation includes $7 billion for broadband. 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently completed its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction. The goal of the auction was to bring to rural areas across the United States the same affordable and reliable broadband service enjoyed in many urban and suburban areas. A review of the results of the auction shows it is unlikely the FCC attained its goal—and for America’s rural communities, the ongoing uncertainty is likely to persist for some time. CTC Technology & Energy analysis of the RDOF results points to a few key takeaways for local communities:

David Sumi is vice president of marketing for Siklu, a fixed wireless equipment manufacturer that was part of a group of manufacturers that convinced the Federal Communications Commission to allow Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) fixed wireless bids for the gigabit tier. According to Sumi, there have been a lot of advances in fixed wireless recently. He described two Siklu offerings that could be used for gigabit fixed wireless deployments and noted that other manufacturers have similar offerings.

In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology (collectively, the Bureaus) adopted performance requirements establishing a uniform framework for measuring speed and latency performance for recipients of high-cost support to serve fixed locations. Later, the Bureaus addressed certain issues regarding testing to be conducted by high-latency bidders in the Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II auction.

When the Federal Communications Commission announced $312 million in grants for one relatively small company to build broadband in Minnesota, it stirred controversy among those who worry the internet provider can’t deliver what it promised. Now that squabble over the company, LTD Broadband, has spilled over into Minnesota’s own grant program for development of high-sp