FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel made it clear recently that the FCC is not willing to tackle funding for the ACP plan that is expiring in May. She estimated that the FCC would have to add something like $9 to every broadband bill in the country to fund the ACP plan.

But there is another alternative. States could pick up the ACP funding just for their state. States will have the authority to do this after the FCC approves the reinstitution of Title II authority this month. That authority would give the FCC the authority to create the fee needed to fund the ACP through the FCC Universal Service Fund.

We’ve always had a regulatory structure that allows States to tackle any telecom issue that the FCC decides not to pursue. Once Title II regulation is in place, and assuming that the FCC formally passes on funding ACP, then each state would be free to do so.

It’s obvious that the big ISPs are worried about this. A joint letter from Comcast, Charter, and Cox was recently sent to the FCC asking it to preempt States from establishing a State version of ACP.

If I was a betting man, I bet that the FCC will not preempt the States on this issue. While the FCC is not ready to take on the flak that would come with creating a nationwide ‘tax’ on every broadband household and business, I’m guessing that they will allow States to do so.

Many States already have a mechanism that easily could handle this. A lot of States have a State universal service fund that mimics the structure of the FCC’s USF. The States have used these funds in the past to support rural telcos or to fund other telecom-related issues. Many States already assess a fee on telephone customers to fund the State USF. It’s not much of a stretch for a State to extend this to cover a broadband discount.

States that decide to create a low-income subsidy plan that like the ACP will face the same kind of issues highlighted by Chairwoman Rosenworcel. A State fee could easily be anything from a few dollars per month to over $10 per month. People are annoyed at any taxes and fees added to products they must buy, and a large fee is going to draw a lot of public attention and ire.

There are ways that the States could reduce the size of an ACP replacement. An easy change would be to not cover cellphones, just home broadband connections. States are also likely to fiddle with the qualifications. The ACP program had a wide range of ways to qualify, with the most important one being that ACP is eligible to homes making as much as twice the level of poverty for a given area. States might lower that threshold to lower the size of the fund and the size of any monthly fee.

It’s always interesting to watch big ISPs fight hard to keep fees from being assessed on broadband. In this particular case, a State USF assessment wouldn’t likely cost an ISP anything since they would pass the fee on to customers. But big ISPs are fighting hard to maintain the current environment where broadband can’t be taxed. While payments to a state or federal USF fund are technically fees and not taxes, they feel like taxes to the folks who pay them. The big ISPs have been successful at keeping broadband from being taxed for the last 25 years, and they don’t want to open up the floodgate where State and local governments feel they can tax broadband revenues for ACP since that would raise the issue of assessing fees for a wide variety of other purposes.

Of course, this discussion could end in a hurry if Congress steps up and funds some version of ACP. That’s not something I’m willing to bet on.