dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Aims To Expand USF
But again, they probably should bother to fix it first....

For years we've discussed how the Universal Service Fund (USF) is perhaps one of the worst examples of government dysfunction and corporate abuse, even by the government's own admission. The fund, which customers have poured billions in fees into over the least decade -- is designed to help bring phone service (not broadband) to rural areas and broadband to the nation's libraries (which, well, hasn't gone so well).

Unfortunately, the FCC spent most of the last decade without adequately tracking where the money goes. As you can imagine, this meant that while much of the money went where it should, a significant chunk of it simply went back into company pockets or was magically lost on the municipal level. With the country exploring how to get broadband into the country's rural nooks and crannies, Uncle Sam's looking to expand the USF to fund broadband, according to Amy Shatz at the Wall Street Journal:
quote:
Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski said he wants to overhaul a $7 billion federal phone-subsidy program and reallocate more airwaves to wireless carriers as part of a strategy to improve U.S. broadband Internet availability. Mr. Genachowski's comments Tuesday at a conference here are the latest signals that the FCC chairman is determined to shake up the status quo to make fast Internet service cheaper and more widely available.
Of course expanding the USF to cover rural broadband really wouldn't be "shaking up the status quo," but fixing the program so it actually works could be. Genachowski's statements continue to indicate that expanding the USF plays a major part in the FCC's new broadband plan, which they'll be unveiling to Congress in 77 days.
view:
topics flat nest 

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

Figures

I heard this saying long ago... but it always seems true:

Bad law is more likely to be supplemented than repealed.

koitsu
MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
Humax BGW320-500

1 recommendation

koitsu

MVM

Re: Figures

said by pnh102:

I heard this saying long ago... but it always seems true:

Bad law is more likely to be supplemented than repealed.
That's a beautiful quote, and highly applicable to this situation.

The saddest part of the USF, for me, is that I fully support what it's *supposed* to be used for -- but it's being abused (money not going where it should), being applied illegally by some ISPs or telcos (confirmed by the FCC), and doesn't appear to be actually tracked (I want to see the results of the cash I pay into this -- I don't mean me personally, since I live in an urbanised area, but I mean a map of the results or something! Actually, with regards to schools, I can get a list...)

When I think of the USF, I want to smile and know that new opportunities of technology are being offered to rural areas which previously couldn't get either broadband or telephone, or people who can't afford such necessities (referring to phone) -- which is what the High-Cost and Low-Income programmes are supposed to provide. I want to smile knowing more schools will have high speed Internet access for useful resources (when I was a kid, I'd have killed for Wikipedia while doing US History reports), or hospitals becoming better networked (not to the Internet, but quite possibly to themselves or one another). I want to know that what I'm paying goes where it should -- so that the next time I see the tax on my voice landline bill, I'll feel like I'm helping improve things for others... not fill someone's pockets.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Figures

said by koitsu:

The saddest part of the USF, for me, is that I fully support what it's *supposed* to be used for -- but it's being abused (money not going where it should), being applied illegally by some ISPs or telcos (confirmed by the FCC), and doesn't appear to be actually tracked (I want to see the results of the cash I pay into this -- I don't mean me personally, since I live in an urbanised area, but I mean a map of the results or something! Actually, with regards to schools, I can get a list...)
And if your a rural customer of a Baby Bell, God help you. The Baby Bell doesn't qualify for most forms of USF subsidy (billing corporate and administrative costs to the feds), and doesn't take the money anyways. So even if the USF paid for broadband, only the rural independent ILECs will use the "bailout", the mega Baby Bells that are flush with $ won't touch USF and its terms and conditions with a 10 foot pole.

DeltaDude
@skybeam.com

DeltaDude

Anon

Rural Broadband Economics

I've read a couple of think tank reports that suggest rural broadband via wire line facilities is really not viable without large subsidies. If you want to read an incredible article -

»www.crn.com/networking/2 ··· TMY32JVN

I thought that BPL was long dead? BTW this is being brought to you on a 6 Mbit Motorola Canopy system from very rural Western Colorado.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Rural Broadband Economics

said by DeltaDude :

I've read a couple of think tank reports that suggest rural broadband via wire line facilities is really not viable without large subsidies. If you want to read an incredible article -

»www.crn.com/networking/2 ··· TMY32JVN

I thought that BPL was long dead? BTW this is being brought to you on a 6 Mbit Motorola Canopy system from very rural Western Colorado.
A lot of things aren't viable without subsidies in rural areas.

But a lot of things in cities aren't viable without subsidies either.

In the end it's not about dollars and cents, it's about ensuring that everyone has access to the new economy.

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

jester121

Premium Member

Re: Rural Broadband Economics

said by fifty nine:

In the end it's not about dollars and cents, it's about ensuring that everyone has access to the new economy.
Wait... doesn't that mean it IS about dollars and cents?

You should run for office.
LostMile
Premium Member
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI

LostMile to DeltaDude

Premium Member

to DeltaDude
said by DeltaDude :

I've read a couple of think tank reports that suggest rural broadband via wire line facilities is really not viable without large subsidies.
Yah, that's what they'd like everyone to believe.

What really needs to happen is a billion dollar X-Prize (funded with ObamaBucks) for the first inexpensive device that can xmit 3Mb symmetrically over ~5 miles of crusty old copper phone lines.

Then we'll see whats really possible!
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Rural Broadband Economics

said by LostMile:

What really needs to happen is a billion dollar X-Prize (funded with ObamaBucks) for the first inexpensive device that can xmit 3Mb symmetrically over ~5 miles of crusty old copper phone lines.

Then we'll see whats really possible!
Its called whitespace broadband. Drive the wires at an amplitude that WILL cause interference to anything at that frequency near the copper trunk line, so nothing better be using that frequency wirelessly. The wire will just increase the signal strength vs doing the same thing wirelessly. Think unshielded coax.
patcat88

patcat88 to DeltaDude

Member

to DeltaDude
said by DeltaDude :

I've read a couple of think tank reports that suggest rural broadband via wire line facilities is really not viable without large subsidies. If you want to read an incredible article -

»www.crn.com/networking/2 ··· TMY32JVN

I thought that BPL was long dead? BTW this is being brought to you on a 6 Mbit Motorola Canopy system from very rural Western Colorado.
Someone put up the power lines and the POTS lines to your rural home. Why on earth can't it be done today? Somehow it was done in the past.
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

rdmiller

Member

Err?

The quote from Ms. Shatz article has nothing to do with USF.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Spectrum

Where does Mr. Genachowski plan to get this additional spectrum from?

Maybe he ought to implement a more comprehensive "use it or lose it" policy with spectrum licensees.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: Spectrum

said by fifty nine:

Maybe he ought to implement a more comprehensive "use it or lose it" policy with spectrum licensees.
Definitely. The grandfathered users laugh all the way to the bank. Many years ago, any business who would today use cellphones would get a Industrial/Business Radio license as easily as a vending machine. All those businesses still sit on their licenses, even though cellphones have obsoleted the Industrial/Business Radio purpose. If your not digital and you use the channel intermittently you need to loose your license. Same thing with radiolocation and the military. The military sits on a mount everest of spectrum, do they use it? who the hell knows. Its amazing the military doesn't still have a "Spark Gap" transmitter license.
ualdayan
join:2004-07-17
Antioch, TN

ualdayan

Member

FCC

I'm willing to give Julius Genachowski a bit more benefit of the doubt. He seems to be willing to do things communication companies don't like (net neutrality, opposing bandwidth caps, white space devices) than previous FCC chairmans.

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49

Premium Member

Expand USF??

You mean charge more for USF?

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Expand USF??

said by Murdoc49:

You mean charge more for USF?

Most likely, all these grand plans have to be paid for somehow.

Murdoc49
Premium Member
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI

Murdoc49

Premium Member

Re: Expand USF??

Glad i am on voip.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Expand USF??

said by Murdoc49:

Glad i am on voip.
They'll probably levy an "amazon tax" on that too.
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan to Murdoc49

Premium Member

to Murdoc49
said by Murdoc49:

Glad i am on voip.
Being on VOIP won't save you - it'll just make the damage a little less. Right now the USF rate is about 11% - if they raise it your rate will rise too whether your VOIP provider bills you for it or passes it along in their price.

We for example "eat" USF and just include it in our bottom-line rates. If the USF rises significantly - we won't be able to do that any longer, and will have to either raise our rates or charge it separately. Either way the consumer gets screwed if rates rise.

Don't be surprised if it rises more than you expect. For example if you pay $7/month for your service, after some financial magic - USF only accounts to around 20-30 cents out of that. The stupidest idea I've seen so far offered by the FCC is charging $1 per phone number regardless of how much the plan/number actually costs. That means that a number that cost $1 yesterday will cost $2 today. a plan that costs $7 yesterday iwll cost $8 today.

The USF is bad for consumers. We need to get rid of it. I recommend contacting your Congress reps and letting them know exactly what you think about the USF - and plans to raise it. It's pretty sad that the government even thinks about raising taxes when the country is in such poor financial state.
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA

neftv

Member

Re: Expand USF??

said by nitzan:

said by Murdoc49:

Glad i am on voip.
The USF is bad for consumers. We need to get rid of it. I recommend contacting your Congress reps and letting them know exactly what you think about the USF - and plans to raise it. It's pretty sad that the government even thinks about raising taxes when the country is in such poor financial state.
That is just what I did this afternoon to see what he has to say about it.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to nitzan

Premium Member

to nitzan
said by nitzan:

The USF is ? for consumers. We need to get rid of it. I recommend contacting your Congress reps and letting them know exactly what you think about the USF - and plans to raise it. It's pretty sad that the government even thinks about raising taxes when the country is in such poor financial state.
It may be bad for existing consumers (maybe cheaper to offer education/opportunity to rural users than pay for years of support/food stamps/ prisons/etc.)
The program DOES need SEVERE supervision, pay ment ONLY for installed lines (telco/fiber/cable) at "reasonable rates" ,higher than the high density ' burbs' (real costs) not subsidised forever.
AND yes TALK to (phone/ write/ email/ text/ etc.) ALL your reps regularly, THEY work for YOU....unless you allow OTHERS to speak in your place.
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan

Premium Member

Re: Expand USF??

said by tshirt:

maybe cheaper to offer education/opportunity to rural users than pay for years of support/food stamps/ prisons/etc.
Not having fiber in their school does not equal not having an education. While I'm all for education - it should be subsidized by local citizens and NOT the entire country. I don't understand the whole robin-hood like mentality behind USF - basically collect taxes from the entire country to subsidize a very small portion of the population that CHOOSES to live in areas where it is harder to offer communication services.

If you choose to live on a farm where the next farm is three miles away then sorry - but I don't think our tax dollars should be wasted to fund your broadband service.

And it gets worse- not only is the premise behind the USF already questionable - various companies have found creative ways to enhance their slice of the pie without actually providing any extra services or incurring any extra costs to do so. In essence a lot of companies look at the USF as just another form of revenue/profit. There is pretty much zero supervision of where funds go, and it's more than likely that a huge portion of the funds collected are not used for the purpose they were intended for.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Murdoc49

Premium Member

to Murdoc49
said by Murdoc49:

Glad i am on voip.
remember when $24.99 vonage was $24.99 out the door?
its only a matter of time before the universal slush fund fee comes to voip/cable.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to Murdoc49

Premium Member

to Murdoc49
said by Murdoc49:

You mean charge more for USF?
If by overhaul he means moving money to other uses and auditing use, that is one thing.

My fear is that by overhaul he means double the tax bite and spend the extra on broadband. What we don't need is yet one more stinking tax increase from some unaccountable bureaucratic agency.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

build the roads

if part of the problem is building out the fiber optics to these rural areas, why not spend money to bring FIBER OPTIC CABLES to town hall (or geographical center point)-- then from there, build out the last mile... at some point, either the local municipality can either:
A. run their own muni broadban/telecom company, or B. find a small carrier to provide service & build infrastructure.

Once the fiber optics are in-place, there is much less of a reason to complain that it's not cost effective to build rural broadband if a massive conduit of fiber cable reaches every municipality (town hall, or some central infrastructure point) in the USA!

This is a better goal then sending tens of millions of dollars worth of networking equipment to Hawaii such as what the fcc usf did in the 1990's and the equipment languished for so long in warehouses (sounds familiar, right?) that it became worthless. This kind of mismanagement happens in many parts of the federal government whether the top schmuck is a democrat or republican!
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: build the roads

That already exists. Every CO in america has fiber going to it. Every town hall has fiber going to it, unless the municipality objects to it. T3s are always fiber. The schools all have fiber because of USF. Town halls have fiber because of anti-terrorism money from DHS for CCTVs around town. What about FO connected traffic lights? Same thing with libraries. All these places already have fiber, either from the cable company (yeah, forgot about them?), the ILEC, or regional ISPs with their own fiber or from the state DOT.

The problem is, none of the business fiber owners want to touch residential customers. Residential customers need hand holding, threaten to sue when they get viruses and slow internet speeds, etc. Businesses will pay big money for useless SLAs (cheaper to just refund the month's service charge than pay overtime for weekend fix). Residential customers won't pay more than $100 a month. Also with residential customers, you need to swallow the construction costs, businesses you can charge $100 an hour engineering charges/cost plus billing to set up their fiber optic service.
Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL

Bob61571

Member

USF now going to Free Cell Phones for Poor People

part of your USF now goes to Free Cell Phones for Poor People

»www.suntimes.com/news/br ··· .article

"Your Tax Dollars at Work(Sorta):Free Cell Phones" ,
Mark Brown, November 10 2009 , Chicago Sun-Times

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas

Premium Member

Re: USF now going to Free Cell Phones for Poor People

if your disabled i can see how a cellphone can be of assistance. i.e. if your legally blind like myself and need directions from a bus stop.

poor and drive a junker, breaks down with ya kids, call a buddy to pick ya up.

still after reading that article, it makes me wonder,, if these companys can give 60 minutes a month for a $10 subsidy. how much are those of us that pay out right for our service clearly over paying.....

spsp2
@netdoor.com

spsp2

Anon

rural broadband

i moved here in 2003 and fiber was already here then when katrina hit and the copper crossing the road to my mobile home was hit with a tree , they came back and ran fiber to my home BUT broadband is nowhere in sight. cable modem in 1 (ONE) mile down the road . at&t finally put a dslam 2.7 miles down the road in a small town but only a couple of streets have dsl...fiber isn't the problem here ....must be politics cause they have been piling the usf money up for far too long...i don't know of many places that don't have basic phone service so they are not using that money for that... we have well paid lobbyist in this country
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

Problem = Upper Management

You just cant trust them not to use the USF (or whatever) funds for something else. Which is pretty much the problem with upper management at any large company. Who watches the watchers?!?!

Americas biggest corporate issues are in upper management. I don't know how to reign these douche bags in but the looting is even occurring at my own company. (Think largest PC manufacturer on the planet.) They take home huge bonuses when us worker bees haven't had a raise in 6 years now and they took 5% of our salary away while still giving themselves huge bonuses.

It's pure unadulterated bullshit. Something has to change and soon.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

Telco's pocketed USF fees rather than upgrading.

While the telephone companies were pocketing the USF Fees the Cable Television Industry was upgrading their networks at their own expense, with RF over Fiber. Why? At the time there was a loud sucking sound as customers were abandoning cable for direct broadcast satellite service. Consumers turned their backs on crappy 55 Channel Cable Systems when they could get 150 channels through the air. The cable industry had to do something, so they developed digital cable. The telephone companies need to get moving or they will find themselves in the same position as the canal companies were in, when railroads were developed in the 1830's. Sunk!
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA

neftv

Member

Where does USF benefit?

I never heard of anyone who benefited from the USF. I don't want to see a USF web site that says who conceptually benefits, I want to see names of people or companies who benefited. If no one shows me this then I arrest my case the it's money that is being stolen. For certain it's not helping Pot's line prices or cell phone service prices in making it affordable to low income or rural area.
Anyway anytime I hear the word expand coming from a government (agency) I get a feeling to run for the hills.
Isn't Congress suppose to over see the FCC? I guess not why break break the easy money from us chumps.

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Re: Where does USF benefit?

said by neftv:

I never heard of anyone who benefited from the USF. I don't want to see a USF web site that says who conceptually benefits, I want to see names of people or companies who benefited.
Read Bob61571's link, it lists several names of the people who rehave benefited from the USF, in the form of free cell phones and service.

I don't know what bugs me more, telco's pocketing the cash, or a bunch of lazy asses getting free cell service on top of their free food and reduced rate housing.
neftv
join:2000-10-01
Broomall, PA

neftv

Member

Re: Where does USF benefit?

The last paragraph in that article says you don't have to be poor to get the free cell phone you just have to be already helped by the government.
So I am unemployed and getting unemployment can I get subsidy for my Blackberry phone and data on AT&T (which I am paying for now)? I'm in PA though.
If my Congressman actually replies to my inquiry about the USF I am going to ask him for help. I may as well get some of that money back too while I am unemployed, less for the Telcos to pocket the money. Even that is so un-policed how do they know that the Telco is really putting it what they suppose to because I am sure the got bright CPA's that work on that.
This really pisses me off now that I read that article. Like having a driver license is a privilege not a right. And I am thinking Cell Phone is a "luxury" item not a necessity. I can see the home phone being needed. I better stop.
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

the real benefit..

goes to executives in the telcos. They see it as just another way to funnel money to their execs. Using it to benefit consumers is against their principles.
Chosen13
join:2001-08-05
Orange Park, FL

1 edit

Chosen13

Member

Correction needed

...is perhaps one of the worst examples of government dysfunction and corporate abuse...

Isn't this one of the BEST examples? Or am I just reading it wrong.

-Chosen1
mogooder
join:2002-11-26
Washougal, WA

mogooder

Member

Govenment aqusition of your money never needs fixed

If the government is getting your money, then there system isn't broken, now if they are not using it properly, thats a different issue and will be discussed out of public pervue and a well spun response will be presented.

Another disgruntled american

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA

thedragonmas

Premium Member

force phone companys to accept lifeline

bellsouth accepted lifeline

att accepts lifeline

mediacom,, dosent. yet they charge the USF fee.

i say force any company providing phone service to accept lifeline for lowincome folks. that way the moneys actually used!