Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

FCC Chair Rejects Call To Impose Universal Service Fees on Broadband (arstechnica.com) 21

The Federal Communications Commission chair decided not to impose Universal Service fees on Internet service, rejecting arguments for new assessments to shore up an FCC fund that subsidizes broadband network expansions and provides discounts to low-income consumers. From a report: The $8 billion-a-year Universal Service Fund (USF) pays for FCC programs such as Lifeline discounts and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund deployment grants for ISPs. Phone companies must pay a percentage of their revenue into the fund, and telcos generally pass those fees on to consumers with a "Universal Service" line item on telephone bills.

Imposing similar assessments on broadband could increase the Universal Service Fund's size and/or reduce the charges on phone service, spreading the burden more evenly across different types of telecommunications services. Some consumer advocates want the FCC to increase the fund in order to replace the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), a different government program that gives $30 monthly broadband discounts to people with low incomes but is about to run out of money because of inaction by Congress. The Universal Service funding question is coming up now because, on April 25, the FCC is scheduled to vote on reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service in order to re-impose the net neutrality rules scrapped during the Trump era. Imposing Universal Service charges on broadband would likely result in ISPs adding those costs to monthly bills and would make the net neutrality proceeding even more of a political minefield than it already is. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel's net neutrality proposal takes the same stance against requiring Universal Service contributions that the FCC took in 2015 when it first imposed the net neutrality rules.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Chair Rejects Call To Impose Universal Service Fees on Broadband

Comments Filter:
  • by Press2ToContinue ( 2424598 ) on Monday April 08, 2024 @04:32PM (#64379162)
    Look, I've got to respectfully push back on the FCC's decision here. I know they're worried about causing a big disruption by adding broadband to the Universal Service Fund, but I think they're being way too cautious.Instead of just shutting the door completely on that idea, they could've taken a more measured approach. They could've delayed any action on broadband USF contributions for now, rather than outright forbearing from it. That would've kept the option open to revisit it later on.

    Especially with that Affordable Connectivity Program set to expire soon, I think the FCC should be looking at other options to make sure people can still afford essential broadband service. Reforming the USF seems like it could be one way to do that, but now they've gone and closed off that path.

    To me, it just feels short-sighted. By ruling this out entirely, they might be limiting their own options down the road. I think a more flexible, incremental approach would've been smarter. Broadband is a critical utility now, so we should be creative and adaptable in how we fund universal access and affordability. Hopefully the FCC will keep an open mind on this in the future.
    • Especially with that Affordable Connectivity Program set to expire soon, I think the FCC should be looking at other options to make sure people can still afford essential broadband service.

      So the way to make broadband more affordable is by tacking on additional fees to the cost of the service?

      I totally get wanting to do the whole wealth redistribution thing so underprivileged people don't starve or freeze to death (or here in Florida, suffer heat stroke), but you absolutely can live without a home broadband connection. It's nice to have, but it's not essential.

    • by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2024 @12:48AM (#64380064) Homepage

      The Universal Service Fund was originally used to subsidize the up-front cost of installing a phone line when the cost exceeded the average. For example, in rural areas where long lines of wire are needed for every customer. If that were still the case, I would be 100% in favor of applying it to broadband.

      The USF changed under Clinton. It's now used to subsidize general IT in rural schools and programs that pay ISPs to provide freeish service to poor people. It doesn't even do the modern version of its original job. You've heard reports of Comcast proposing to build cable Internet to someone for tens of thousands of dollars. If that were a "pots" phone line, the USF would have subsidized it, but it just doesn't do that any more.

      So, as long as the USF is misused and required by law to be misused, the FCC is correct to refuse to add it to broadband lines.

  • Bah (Score:2, Interesting)

    Subsidizing Rural Infrastructure. Where? The Communication Companies already too Billions and Didn't do Squat, They left Rural People high and dry and gave several lame excuses also citing it's too expensive, While also Raising Prices and making a Profit. It's a load of BS. Decades ago there was a huge call to DEREGULATED the Industry, Remember that? They Promised to Lower Costs to Consumers, Guess what happened? Prices Went to Warp speed and went to space, it Didn't stop. There is more fees and Extra taxes
    • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      What I find strange is that considering the per-customer cost, wouldn't it be cheaper to just subsidize a static Starlink terminal or two for each village?

      When you consider how much it costs to lay cables for the relevant distances, I would imagine Starlink terminals for remote locations would be much more cost effective. Or are there so many potential clients for the program that Starlink doesn't have the capacity?

      • These companies already got BILLIONS to do the work already. They refused to do it. Once you lay or string the Fiber optic cables and put the Distribution nodes in, You'd think it would be expensive but, once it's up it starts generating once you get the customers signed and hooked up. Starlink has it's own working conditions. and why should the US gov't pay Elon for their service if it ALREADY Paid out to these Companies?
        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Pragmatism and working toward the stated goal, rather than beating on a dead horse.

          • Starling is not affordable. Very high upfront costs. And high monthly rates. Last year it had 2 rate increases. It certainly will not help low-income households.

            • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

              It's a few hundred up front for the terminal, and less than a hundred a month for a stationary terminal. That would be far cheaper than pulling cables for hundreds of kilometers to the remote areas. And you can make an agreement to buy these terminals in bulk, and they can easily feed more than one household if it's a village with a few housing units near one another.

              • by madbrain ( 11432 )

                I'm seeing $599 cost for the hardware and $120/month for the service.
                Feeding more than one household probably would violate the ToS. And would still be costly to run wiring in low-density rural communities where distances between homes might be very significant.

                AT&T has fiber 0.5 mile from me down the hill. I have been on their waiting list 13 years. There are probably 100 homes they could cover by running the fiber. They haven't done it because they consider it too expensive. This will be even more of

                • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

                  >I'm seeing $599 cost for the hardware and $120/month for the service.

                  When I looked a local one, it was about that much for the base station, and 80 for service, + premium if you want mobile service (base station moves).

                  You will not need a mobile base station, since this would be a permanent installation for a specific location. And you would simply agree on a bulk order that would be significantly cheaper, and you would subsidize that. Then you need to contrast a cost of that to the cost of pulling cabl

            • Starling is not affordable. Very high upfront costs. And high monthly rates.

              Comes with the territory of living out in the middle of nowhere. Costs a lot of gas to drive into town, too. Even something as simple as not having city water can turn into a massive expense if your well runs dry.

              • by madbrain ( 11432 )

                I know. I am on city water, but my immediate neighbor is in county and right above the San Jose water tank that's behind my house. He has a well.

                I have a massive solar PV system and we drive EV/PHEV (Bolt and Volt), so we hardly spend anything on gas.

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        When you consider how much it costs to lay cables for the relevant distances

        It costs a lot to lay cable if you have your hand out, expecting a subsidy. It's pretty cheap if you are a power company with existing overhead lines and you just hand your crew another reel with fiber optic cable to hang while they're climbing the poles anyway.

        A number of utilities have gotten into the broadband business through the back door this way. And done pretty well, until the incumbent telecoms saw what they were doing. They can't get away with it anymore if they are a municipality. Investor-owned

        • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Point being that there are now many locations where this clearly didn't pan out. And something should be done about that.

          So the options are to beat on the dead horse that clearly wants to stay a corpse, or be pragmatic.

      • by stulew ( 9337151 )
        a contact call to Musk to see if Starlink business wants to become the manifest standard for rural connections. It is a sure conclusion that the legacy landline companies are not 'service oriented' to help the rural citizens...the landline companies dragged their feet until these independent companies started alternative access and competitive prices.
  • by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Monday April 08, 2024 @05:03PM (#64379254)

    I'm so sick of the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy waving their magic fee wand and lining their own pockets in the process. If this is so damn important, then Congress needs to quit being so effing lazy and pass a single-purpose bill. Oh, but that would put their future reelection campaign at risk. Screw that. Grow a spine.

    • Congress has been abrogating its responsibilities for decades, if not centuries, to the presidency. Many politicians and commentators, both liberal and conservative, have bemoaned the trends. Interestingly, when parties have both the presidency and the legislature (when something can actually been done about it), nothing changes.

      • Congress has been abrogating its responsibilities for decades, if not centuries, to the presidency. Many politicians and commentators, both liberal and conservative, have bemoaned the trends. Interestingly, when parties have both the presidency and the legislature (when something can actually been done about it), nothing changes.

        When the Democrats have both the legislative and the executive branches, they start prattling about reaching across the aisle and kumbaya and we love everybody and blah blah, any excuse to not fucking do anything. When the Republicans have both they get lost in their fundamentals, and start in-fighting about whether it's more important to strip civil liberties or stomp on people's hopes, even if in the end they're arguing the same points, they still argue. Strangely, both parties are great with handing bill

This is now. Later is later.

Working...