Print 63 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Feb 14 at 6:36 AM

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski  (Source: LA Times)
Funding redirection could bring high-speed access to new areas of the country

The Universal Services Fund (USF) was an initiative put in place by former U.S. President Bill Clinton's Federal Communication Commission in 1997.  The USF takes a large cut out of consumer phone bills -- approximately 15 percent out of a long-distance bill, for example -- and redirects that money to funding landline telephone service to low-income rural areas, and providing broadband at public institutions.

Over time the usefulness of landline phones has faded, but the FCC continues to pour money into that aspect of the effort.  In his bid to beef up our nation's broadband, U.S. President Barack Obama's appointed FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, is looking to scrap that funding and redirect it to promoting broadband in rural areas.

He proposed the change during a speech [PDF] at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.  He stated:

In the 21st century, high-speed Internet, not telephone, is our essential communications platform, and Americans are using wired and wireless networks to access it. But while the world has changed around it, USF -- in too many ways -- has stood still, and even moved backwards.

Currently the landline fund eats up $4.3B USD a year, while the broadband fund only gets a chunk of the remaining money.  Chairman Genachowski suggests a gradual fadeout of the telephone funding, transitioning that money to a new broadband deployment and support fund designed to push broadband into rural areas.

The new fund, formally titled the Connect America Fund, would aim to cover 24 million Americans with broadband.  Chairman Genachoski complains that the USF is becoming outdated and needs the changes.  He states, "The fund pays almost $2,000 per month -- more than $20,000 a year -- for some households to have phone service. And in many places, the existing system funds four or more phone companies to serve the same area."

The speech came with the filing of a "Notice For Proposed Rule-Making" (NFPRM).  This is the FCC's way of giving the public chance to comment.

Wireless service providers like Verizon and rural broadband providers have expressed enthusiasm about the shift.  Thus far rural landline operators have kept quiet, but they're unlikely to appreciate the measure.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: another option
By tastyratz on 2/8/2011 12:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention members of homeowners associations, and people with homes that have no clear sky direct view (like having a tree... or another house for example in the way of the direct path.

I myself do not live in a rural area and have my choices, but I can see a problem with the "move somewhere else" view the privileged seem to have.

RE: another option
By StevoLincolnite on 2/8/2011 12:39:53 PM , Rating: 3
But I can see a problem with the "move somewhere else" view the privileged seem to have.

Not only that, but allot of people who live in remote areas are also farmers.

Would be interesting to see how city-elitists would feel/act if the farmers were not farming to provide food on their plates because they were forced to live in a city.

RE: another option
By mcnabney on 2/8/2011 1:44:10 PM , Rating: 5
When I went to bed last night broadband internet was not a right. What changed?

RE: another option
By tastyratz on 2/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: another option
By Taft12 on 2/8/2011 3:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
I think the demonstrations that happened recently in Egypt, mostly organized through the internet (and the government's move to shut down the internet as a result) makes it abundantly clear that it might be the most important tool we citizens have in the 21st century.

RE: another option
By ebakke on 2/8/2011 11:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Americans became greedy, selfish brats that feel entitled to everything and have no problem stealing from someone else to pay for those entitlements. "You have fast internet, and I want fast internet!! So I'll vote for someone who will forcibly take your money and build me some high speed internet infrastructure!"

RE: another option
By wookie1 on 2/8/2011 2:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Farmers don't produce food as a public service. They do it to sustain themselves and hopefully have a little extra at the end of the day. Somehow I think that the farmers are still going to produce even if they aren't subsidized with broadband. Some may choose to get service, others may not care one way or the other. Farmers have produced food for thousands of years without broadband, but all of a sudden now they won't because the city slickers have broadband and they don't?

RE: another option
By tastyratz on 2/8/2011 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
Depends. Farmers in Florida grew oranges and sold them to people in Florida. Now they ship Florida oranges around the country if not world DRASTICALLY increasing their sales revenue. "thousands" of years ago your market was as far as you could wheel your goods and pitch them. Try to do that these days and remain competitive with those which are connected and you will realize your at a great disadvantage.

The old fashioned way worked fine when it was the only way to do it. Now it means you might have 10% the sales 300% the overhead and may never survive in your target market as a result. "Thousands" of years ago if your competition had better tools you were not as competitive, and the same applies today.

RE: another option
By wookie1 on 2/9/2011 10:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
Why is it my responsibility (and all of the other taxpayers) to offset these competitive disadvantages? I agree that if I were running a business and didn't use the internet, that I may be at a disadvantage to other businesses that did outfit themselves with broadband. So I would then outfit myself with broadband. I wouldn't demand that all of the taxpaying citizens of the country outfit me with it.

RE: another option
By delphinus100 on 2/8/2011 10:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Farmers don't produce food as a public service. They do it to sustain themselves and hopefully have a little extra at the end of the day.

Farmers have produced food for thousands of years without broadband, but all of a sudden now they won't because the city slickers have broadband and they don't?

We're not talking about subsistence farmers who grow just enough to feed themselves. A family farm is, at the very least, a small business that has to make a profit.

Could you run a small business (and one that's inherently some distance from an urban area) without at least telephone service, in the 21st Century? I'm thinking not.

Now, broadband Internet access is not as utterly necessary to that end, it's true. But increasingly desirable? Yes.

RE: another option
By wookie1 on 2/9/2011 11:00:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not talking about subsistence farmers, either. I don't think that the traditional family farmer pulls in a big truckload of cash, though.

I probably couldn't run a small business without a telephone, or electricity, or water, so I would definitely plan on budgeting for those necessary inputs. Hey, it's cool if I can get the taxpaying public to cover my operational costs, but should I reasonably expect that?

RE: another option
By spamreader1 on 2/10/2011 2:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
Most family farmers, even larger ones, don't get to set thier own prices on most products (milk and eggs, largest example). Everythings regulated at state and federal levels. Where you can budget the necessary inputs, farmers have to sacrifice as it is for telco service, many areas are cooperatives that aren't even being fed these funds mentioned in the article, and are paid by the members of the cooperatives. (rural electric is the same in most cases, especially since electric deregulation, I personally pay 33 cents per kw/h now...)

I live on a hobby farm, meaning I don't expect to make a profit, and as such make my money in the IT sector. I use cdma broadband (att aircard) due to the 1500ms lag time of satalite is prohibitive to do any remote access (300ms is doable). There are options available in may locations that are covered by wireless carriers as well as dish for those who don't have access to wireless carrier networks. In areas that have wireless coverage for cell phones I think it would be great to stop supporting the rural telephone network, most of us can't justify the $80+/mo to have a land line anyway, when cell phones are 1/2 the cost. I'd be really interested to see where these funds go, I've lived in rural areas of Texas for most of my life, and to my knownledge the only subsidy employed for telco was the initial investment made when they inacted the rural electric stuff anyway.

"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki