USF Program Advocates Seek Outcry Against Overall Budget Cap
Some USF program allies raised alarms in interviews and statements about Friday's FCC 3-2 NPRM calling for an overall budget cap for the four programs (see 1905310069). Some plan to spread the word about the rulemaking to the public, hoping for a critical response. Advocates for government fiscal discipline had kinder words about the rulemaking.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Common Cause Special Adviser Michael Copps called the NPRM "a horrible idea." Capping funding for the programs could hurt national competitiveness, limiting access to broadband to rural or inner-city students, for example, said the ex-Democratic commissioner. Common Cause will help spread the word about the comment period, he said. "In the final analysis, public outcry can make a difference." Comments are due in docket 06-122 for 30 days after Federal Register publication, replies 60 days later.
"The one thing that could stall this is pressure from [Capitol] Hill," said Gigi Sohn of the Georgetown Law Institute for Law & Policy. She said protecting the USF isn't a partisan issue, and constituencies in congressional districts countrywide could be affected. She predicted a budget cap would lead to a fight among rural schools, libraries and poor people. "I like The Hunger Games analogy," she said, referring to a statement by dissenting Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. Sohn said more money should be devoted to the USF "instead of everybody fighting over the scraps."
NTCA "believes the FCC'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," said CEO Shirley Bloomfield. "To the extent that there is concern about how universal service is paid for, it is time for a meaningful conversation about how those benefiting from increased capability of communications networks must contribute to the[ir] availability and sustainability." Many other telecom associations didn't comment.
Further USF budget strictures has its supporters, on and off the commission. The American Enterprise Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute told us they support an overall budget cap for USF programs.
Americans for Taxpayer Reform has always supported such caps because it's a mechanism for dealing with waste, and it can help better target spending, said Katie McAuliffe, federal affairs manager. "If there's not a cap, there's less attention to fraud and abuse."
But Public Knowledge Senior Policy Counsel Phillip Berenbroick said capping USF when it's the main way to deploy broadband in underserved areas "seems to run counter to the commission's stated goal of closing the digital divide." He called the NPRM unnecessary: "I don't see what the point is." He supported contribution revision instead of caps: "It's unfortunate we're not having that debate." Collecting from only basic phone service users, a dwindling pool, is no longer practical, and broadband subscribers should pay their share as well, he said.
Commissioner Mike O'Rielly thinks a fee on broadband service "would effectively place a sin tax on the Internet -- and thus runs totally counter to the goal of universal connectivity," said his statement. Berenbroick said if the USF is used to extend broadband deployment, "we have to have a way to pay for it." Bloomfield called such conversations a step toward "real fiscal responsibility" and "essential as a matter of equity."
Low-income consumers who rely on Lifeline will be affected first, said Carmen Scurato, Free Press senior policy counsel. Many low-income people, including veterans, wouldn't have such service if money was taken from Lifeline for other USF programs under an overall cap, she said: "It really does pit universal service programs against each other."
Many people who would be hurt by a proposed cap lack lobbyists of their own, noted National Hispanic Media Coalition General Counsel Francella Ochillo. She's uncomfortable with any hint, even if inadvertent, of prioritizing the rural poor over the urban poor when both are marginalized. "There are not enough voices at the table that reflect people who rely on these services," Ochillo said.
The FCC "doesn't tell why rural customers should have to compete against students for the broadband connections both populations desperately need," said Consortium for School Networking CEO Keith Krueger in a statement. "Instead, the FCC should focus on promoting what currently works."
"The FCC's proposal to adopt an overall cap on the USF is unfortunate, counterproductive and contrary to congressional intent," emailed Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition Executive Director John Windhausen.