Telecommunications Act of 1996

By now, everybody has written about the pending end of the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The White House asked Congress to fund the ACP for a year for over $6 billion, and almost everyone I know is betting against a miracle from Congress. But even if the ACP gets funded somehow, how sustainable is the ACP if Congress has to act every year to renew it? There have been calls for moving the ACP under the Federal Communications Commission’s Universal Service Fund (USF).

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) is encouraging eligible organizations to apply for grant funding to improve the availability of telecommunications services for Wisconsin residents. The grant funding opportunities include the Nonprofit Access Grant Program, the Lifeline Outreach Grant Program, and the Telemedicine Grant Program. All three grant programs are funded by the Universal Service Fund to help Wisconsin residents get essential and advanced telecommunications services. 

The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) released an updated version of its Connect America Fund Broadband Map. The map shows locations where broadband infrastructure has been deployed with subsidies from the Connect America Fund.

On Dec 12, 2023, Sen Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) wrote to Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel requesting input on proposals to modify the contribution base for the Universal Service Fund (USF).

Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has played a recurring supplemental role in the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) efforts to reclassify Broadband Internet Access Services as a Title II common carrier telecommunications service under the auspices of Net Neutrality. Section 706 instructs the Commission to encourage the “reasonable and timely” deployment of broadband services to all Americans.

Likely seeing the re-regulatory handwriting on the wall, cable internet service providers have told the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just how it should reclassify broadband as a Title II service and what it should and shouldn’t do when it reimposes new net neutrality rules, as it is expected to do after a suitable timespan following the public comment period on its reclassification proposal. NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, joined by over a half-dozen state associations, said if the FCC goes ahead with the plan, it should do the following:

The Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition along with the Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI), filed comments responding to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in support of E-Rate support for off-campus internet access. The NPRM proposes to allow schools and libraries to apply for funding from the FCC’s E-Rate program for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless internet access services to be used by students and library patrons in need.

In December 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued fines for two internet service providers that the FCC says defaulted on Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) obligations. RDOF was the FCC subsidy program where broadband subsidies were awarded by a reverse auction that ended in December 2020. The first fine was to Etheric Communications for $732,000 for 244 locations. Etheric was one of the largest RDOF winners, having won $248.6 million to cover 64,463 locations.

Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel informed Congress that without an additional $6 billion in funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), the program will run out of funds by mid-2024. The program, created with over $14 billion, is less than 2 years old.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) – which financially supports several of the Federal Communications Commission's high-cost and low-income broadband programs, at roughly $8 billion annually – has been going through a tough time. This past year saw the USF dragged before federal court in cases brought by a conservative public interest group questioning the fund's legality. The Fifth and Sixth Circuit courts initially ruled against the petitioners, but the Fifth Circuit then agreed to hear the case en banc in September and has yet to rule.