Universal Service Fund

A point often lost when we talk about the digital divide is what happens when we actually bridge the divide. Too often, we declare mission accomplished when we’ve connected a home that has been forever without, but I challenge you to take a more nuanced view. We should only claim victory when a consumer is meaningfully using their connectivity to take advantage of the economic, educational, and health care opportunities it affords....

One of our primary goals at the Federal Communications Commission is to be good stewards of ratepayer dollars. That means moving away from the past practice of using our high-cost program to fund multiple networks in the same geographic area. We should not support a company that is serving an area where another provider is providing quality service without a subsidy. That is fundamentally inconsistent with protecting consumers and it does not enable the market to work as intended.

Responding to the destruction of communications networks wreaked by Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Federal Communications Commission took steps to immediately provide up to $76.9 million to help restore service. The FCC unanimously voted to immediately provide carriers with up to seven-months’ worth of support from the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, which helps lower the cost of deploying service in areas that are costly to serve. Any funds advanced under today’s action can be used to repair telecommunications infrastructure and restore service to customers across the islands.

The FCC’s actions are intended to enable carriers to restore essential communications services as quickly as possible. FCC staff will help coordinate network repair activities to ensure that the greatest coverage is available to the most people.

Hurricane Maria has had a catastrophic impact on communications networks in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. The Federal Communications Commission has been doing a lot to assist with repair and restoration—and that work continues. That’s why I am proposing that the FCC use its Universal Service Fund to help with these efforts. Responding to natural disasters has consumed the bulk of the FCC’s time and attention this season. But there are other important areas under our jurisdiction, and we’ll cover some of them at our upcoming meeting on October 24.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai released the following statement on a proposed order that would enable carriers in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands to use their Universal Service Fund allocations to more quickly rebuild networks:

“Hurricane Maria caused catastrophic damage to communications networks in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Yesterday, as part of the FCC’s ongoing work to assist with restoration efforts, I shared with my colleagues an order that would quickly make available up to $76.9 million of funding to repair wireline and wireless communication networks and restore communications services in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Specifically, I am proposing to allow carriers to use money provided through the Universal Service Fund’s high-cost program to repair and restore communications networks throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. I am also proposing that we give carriers operating in these territories the option of receiving USF funding in advance. Instead of receiving a standard monthly payment, carriers could elect this month to receive seven months’ worth of funding immediately in order to expedite repair and restoration efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this Order. Given the urgent situation in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, I am asking Commissioners to approve it as soon as possible. If this proposal has not been adopted by the FCC’s October 24 meeting, we will vote on it then.”

The Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau presents this report on voice services in the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (more commonly known as the E-rate program), as directed by the FCC in its 2014 E-rate Order. During the phasedown of voice services which began in funding year 2015, fewer applicants have applied for voice services, though most of the applicants who no longer apply for voice services continue to seek E-rate support for other services. Further, the majority of the applicants who did not receive E-rate support for any service other than voice services in funding year 2014 now receive E-rate support for services other than voice.

While the Lifeline program was a crucial step toward providing low-income Americans with internet access, it’s also become the target of uproarious criticism. The reason? A Government Accountability Office (GAO) study recently reported waste and fraud in Lifeline, and the immense backlash even prompted two Congressional hearings on the matter, both of which largely served as opportunities for senators to publicly tear into the program for alleged “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Thing is, these claims are based on outdated data, given that the Federal Communications Commission has implemented several significant and targeted reforms to root out fraud in the time since the agency collected its data. Weakening the Lifeline program poises the vicious cycle of wealth and opportunity disparity to be passed onto the next generation—and potentially beyond. We shouldn’t allow that to happen.

With this Public Notice the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks comment on the sufficiency of budgets for category two services under the E-rate program (more formally known as the schools and libraries universal service support program). In the E-rate Modernization Orders, the Commission adopted five-year, pre-discount budgets for schools and libraries. When the Commission adopted these rules in 2014, it established a five-year test period to allow the Commission to determine whether the applicant budgets were effective in ensuring greater access to E-rate funding for internal connections. The Commission directed the Bureau to report on the sufficiency of these applicant budgets before the filing window for funding year 2019 opens. In particular, the Commission directed the Bureau to use FCC Form 471 data from funding years 2015 through 2018 to analyze trends across different types of applicants or regions in the nation, particularly schools that serve students with special education services.

In preparation for this report, we seek comment on the sufficiency of the category two budgets. Specifically, we seek comment from applicants, service providers, and other interested parties about how applicants have used their budgets and the percentage of category two services purchased by applicants that were or will be covered by the budget. Interested parties may file comments on or before October 23, 2017 and reply comments on or before November 7, 2017. Comments and reply comments should reference WC Docket No. 13-184.

It's hard to run a successful business without access to high speed broadband. That was the message that repeatedly surfaced as Senate Democrats discussed issues important to rural America during a rural summit on Sept. 13.

Sen Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) joined senators from Montana, Delaware. North Carolina, Minnesota, Michigan and other states, along with national leaders, to discuss issues important to rural America, with an emphasis on boosting economic opportunity. Representing Wisconsin, Sen Baldwin was joined by Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden and James Wessing, president of Kondex Corporation in Lomira.

In describing the importance of rural communities, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) pointed out that about 60 million Americans live in rural areas, which is equivalent to 20 percent of the US population. However, the other 80 percent of the nation's population relies on that 20 percent for their food, energy and "so much of what they need to survive day to day."

There’s no question that high-speed Internet is a game-changer for rural Americans. It’s improving standards of living more than any new technology since the rural electrification effort in the early 20th century. That is—so long as you have access. And that’s the big challenge.

Rural Americans too often find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. In rural America, 28% of households lack access to high-speed, fixed service. In urban areas, only 2% go without. Rural Americans are missing out on opportunities for jobs, health care, education, and more, and there’s a significant cost to those lost opportunities. But I worry that we’re losing something even greater if rural communities remain stuck in the analog age. That’s the slow fade of rural communities themselves. To be clear, I’m not saying that the digital divide is the reason why rural communities are shrinking. This trend started before the commercial Internet even existed. What I am saying is that how we deal with the digital divide will affect the destiny of towns like Parsons and Ulysses and Beloit and Hiawatha. It’ll help determine if this population loss gets faster, slows down, or is potentially reversed. Broadband-enabled opportunities for jobs, education, health care, and agriculture can be a great equalizer for rural America. But so long as some rural communities don’t have broadband, they’ll fall further and further behind.

To spur network deployment in sparsely populated areas where the economic incentives for private investment don’t exist, the FCC is providing direct funding that leverages—not displaces—private capital expenditures. But we also want to modernize our regulations to give companies a stronger business case to build and expand high-speed networks. The plain truth is that bureaucratic red tape at all levels of government can slow the pace and increase the cost of network deployment.

Organizations representing broadband providers have asked the Federal Communications Commission to modify its proposal for the Connect America Fund (CAF II) Auction. The CAF II auction will award funding rejected by price cap carriers in parts of 20 states. The auction is designed to award funding to the provider that offers to deploy service at the lowest level of support. In comments filed with the FCC, one broadband provider organization expressed concern that the proposed auction design could prevent the full amount of available funding from being awarded, while another argued against package bidding. At least two comment filings argued that measures aimed at preventing collusion were too harsh and could deter small broadband providers from participating.