Analysis

This is the second in a series of articles looking at which providers are opting to offer services supported by the Affordable Connectivity Program. According to the Leichtman Research Group, just 16 broadband companies provide service to about 96 percent of all wireline broadband subscribers in the US.

Commenting on the digital divide earlier this month, Vice President Harris said that “one of the most common reasons [is c]ost, the expense of [broadband].” She then praised the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), part of the recently enacted Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for making so many Americans “eligible to receive a monthly discount on their monthly bill.” In fact, the ACP does more than that.

Low-income households are spending too much on connectivity. Prior to the pandemic, the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program supported mainly wireless communication services for low-income households; its $9.25/month subsidy resulting in service plans that restricted voice and data usage. To address Americans’ online connectivity needs during the pandemic, Congress directed the FCC to launch the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) program—a historic expansion of financial support for universal service.

While the recent COVID-response programs are welcomed additions to the effort to connect all people, they are only one part of the total ecosystem required to achieve universal service. The Universal Service Fund continues to be an important part of that ecosystem. Specifically, the Lifeline program’s voice and data and voiceonly subsidies for consumers is not replicated elsewhere, and the Emergency Connectivity Fund program does not reach as far or cover as many needs as the E-rate program. One program does not serve all ends.

The Rural Wireless Association noted that the Universal Service Fund is unsustainable as currently constructed. When the 1996 Telecommunications Act was signed into law, voice telecommunications ruled the day and was the primary service supported by the USF. Circumstances have since changed. An explosion of innovation pushed consumers to use more data and demand higher speeds and lower latency.

Free Press called on the Federal Communications Commission to reinvent its Universal Service Fund (USF) policies so that millions more people can afford the costs of connectivity in the United States. Free Press urged the FCC and Congress to redraft policies crafted in the late 1990s, and last overhauled more than a decade ago, to reflect the sector’s many changes. Free Press wrote, “the good intentions that fueled that effort are no longer a reliable blueprint in a fundamentally changed marketplace.

Every American should have access to affordable broadband internet services at home, school, and work. That's the topline recommendation in The Future of Tech: A Blueprint for Action. Americans appreciate the importance of broadband that is reliable, safe, modern, trustworthy, and affordable.

With a 4-0 vote, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules banning revenue-sharing agreements for internet service providers (ISPs) and multi-tenant environments (MTEs), requiring disclosure of exclusive marketing arrangements and closing loopholes around indoor cable wiring regulations. The FCC has banned revenue-sharing agreements that it says inhibit competition.

I’ve been wondering lately if some of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auction winners are having second thoughts about accepting the RDOF awards. It’s amazing how much the broadband world has changed since the end of that auction in December 2020. It's gotten more expensive to build fiber projects over the last year. The cost of labor is an even bigger concern. New grants and new requirements, that did not exist at the time of the auction, also complicate the situation.