Tag Archives: USF

Predictions for 2026

The following are my predictions for 2026. I noticed that after I wrote this, the overall tenor of the list is negative. I’m generally pretty upbeat, but I can’t find fault with any of the predictions.

Federal Regulators Will Continue to Ignore Congress. Federal broadband regulators will continue to ignore Congressional legislation. This past year, the FCC ignored a Congressional edict to lower inmate calling rates. NTIA is ignoring Congress by withholding grant funding for the Digital Equity Act, and is likely to provide little or no funding for BEAD non-deployment funds. Expect similar actions in 2026.

Further Erosion of BEAD. NTIA is not done trying to whittle down the size of BEAD grant funding. The agency already whacked funding with the Benefit of the Bargain rule changes, along with numerous other actions. I expect NTIA to pull more rabbits out of the hat and find more excuses to deny funding to some states for issues like net neutrality, state permitting rules, or state regulation of AI.

Major Spectrum Battles. Congress instructed the FCC to find 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum for auction. That means potentially reclaiming CBRS spectrum used for rural broadband and 6 GHz spectrum that is just starting to be implemented for WiFi 7. Cellular lobbyists preempted the normal deliberations on spectrum management and got the biggest item on their wish list included in the Big Beautiful Bill. I don’t expect opponents of the spectrum grab to go down without a big fight.

FWA Will Have Another Strong Year. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon just had the biggest quarterly gain of new customers yet, adding over 1 million net new FWA customers in the third quarter of 2025. I predict the three companies will continue to add over 900,000 customers per quarter in 2026, and even more if we see a softening of the economy.

Universal Service Fund Reform Will Stall. Congress is considering badly needed changes to the Universal Service Fund. In the current political chaos in Congress, I predict that a USF bill will never make it through the legislative process.   

Big ISPs Will Have Record Cash Windfalls. There hasn’t been a lot of industry press about the bonus depreciation change included in the Big Beautiful Bill. This allows ISPs to quickly write off current fiber construction, which will cut tax liabilities and generate big cash bonuses for the biggest ISPs in 2026. I predict much of the windfall will be used to buy back stock rather than invest in new networks.

Big ISPs Will All Raise Rates. You might think that in a weakened economy, where the cost of living is the number one issue with the public, ISPs might hold off on rate increases. But the recent $5 across-the-board rate increase by AT&T for fiber will be the first of many significant rate increases during the coming year.

A Federal Regulator Will Declare that the Rural Broadband Gap has Been Solved. I don’t know if it will be the FCC or NTIA, but I expect one of the federal broadband regulators to declare that the rural broadband gap has been solved because of the many grant programs and because everybody can now buy satellite broadband. Arielle Roth already hinted at this when she said in a speech that the mission of BEAD “is nothing less than to close the digital divide once and for all”.

FCC Killing USF WiFi Hotspots

After a prompt from Senator Ted Cruz, the FCC will be voting to ban using the Universal Service Fund to buy hotspots that can be lent to the public from libraries. This follows a similar action earlier this year when the FCC banned the Universal Service Fund from being used to put WiFi on school buses. With a 2:1 republican majority, this new proposal will be passed by the FCC.

Even if the FCC approves the resolution, the ban could be reversed by a future FCC. Senator Cruz is trying to get Congress to institute a permanent ban on using the USF for WiFi devices. The Senate approved a motion in May to ban WiFi from school buses, but this has yet to pass in the House.

The press release from the FCC included the following quote from Senator Cruz, “the Biden FCC hotspot program endangered kids, duplicated existing federal funding, and violated the law.” I am perplexed by the argument that lending WiFi units to homes endangers kids. The argument is based on the idea that lending a hotspot to a home can lead to unsupervised use of the Internet by children. That certainly is possible, but what does that say about the FCC’s mission to get a broadband connection into every home, which obviously can result in the same thing? Just under 90% of homes already have broadband and WiFi, which is even higher if you include kids using cellphones. It makes no sense to ban the lending of WiFi devices with the reason that WiFi is dangerous, when the FCC is designated by law to be the champion of broadband for everybody.

It also seems like an overstatement to say that using the Universal Service Fund to fund the distribution of WiFi devices is illegal. This argument is based on the idea that the USF Schools and Libraries fund should be used only to provide broadband directly at schools and libraries, and nowhere else. The previous FCC thought this program fit within its authority. The current FCC can decide to change the policy, but it’s hard to see a way to characterize a policy decision by a previous FCC as illegal.

I’ve talked to numerous librarians who tell me that WiFi lending is one of the most popular programs at their library. Folks wait for months to get a WiFi hotpot to use for looking for a job, doing homework, or generally enjoying the many benefits of broadband. Every library that lends hotspots tells me they wish they could get more devices.

The good news for libraries is that hotspots can be funded in many ways other than through the Universal Service Fund. A lot of school networks provide hotspots to students who don’t have home broadband. A number of non-profits provide hotspots to students and families who are in shelters or who become homeless. There are a lot of local efforts in communities across the country to fund and provide computers, cellphones, and hotspots for those who need them. Unfortunately, the NTIA killed the Digital Equity Act that would have provided billions of dollars to fund devices.

Implications of Satellite Being Broadband

We’ve had a quiet policy change in the country over the last year where satellite broadband is starting to be considered to be broadband by the federal government. Any rural household that subscribes to and loves Starlink would wonder why this is news, but from a policy perspective, it is a big deal. I’ve been considering what this shift might mean in the future.

The FCC decided that Starlink wasn’t broadband when it rejected Starlink’s long-form filing in August 2022 where Starlink wanted to claim the funding it had won in the RDOF reverse auction. The FCC ruled in that process that it couldn’t “subsidize ventures that are not delivering the promised speeds or are not likely to meet program requirements”. NTIA recognized low-orbit satellite as an acceptable alternative for BEAD funding for high-cost locations in a ruling in 2024 that made it acceptable for States to make RDOF awards to satellite companies. The real change in policy came with the recent Notice from NTIA that reshuffled BEAD grant rules and put satellite on an equal footing with fiber, fixed wireless, and other broadband technologies. The NTIA Notice said that satellite is eligible to win any amount of BEAD funding if it asks for the lowest amount of BEAD funding at a location.

But as is typical with regulatory policy, the NTIA didn’t make a full pivot to satellite. The same Notice that allows satellite to win BEAD anywhere did not change the BEAD map to recognize existing satellite customers as served. The Notice allows WISPs that use unlicensed spectrum to ask to remove locations from the BEAD map if they are already providing speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps. The NTIA did not give this same option to satellite – which could have theoretically allowed Starlink to ask to take all BEAD locations off the map and kill the grant program. I’m having trouble grasping why a home in a BEAD area that is using Starlink is not considered to be served with broadband while Starlink can ask for funding to serve the neighbor, who will then be considered as served. That dichotomy highlights the satellite regulatory issue in a nutshell – is satellite service broadband or not? Apparently, it’s not broadband for mapping purposes, but it is broadband for awarding federal grants and subsidies.

There are definite implications for satellite service being considered as broadband. First, doing so might eliminate any perceived federal need for future broadband grants. There will likely be millions of rural homes incorrectly left out of BEAD due to the faulty FCC maps. We’re still seeing additional RDOF defaults, like the 41,000 locations that CenturyLink just turned back to the FCC. But the FCC and the rest of the federal government can be totally off the hook for future grants with a simple finding by the FCC that satellite service is fully considered to be broadband. The FCC will be able to take a bow and declare rural universal service has been accomplished – regardless of the rural folks who still don’t think they have a broadband option.

If satellite service is broadband, there probably is no need for future federal subsidies that support high-cost areas. Rural subsidies are the biggest part of the Universal Service Fund at $4.5 billion in 2024. That includes subsidies for RDOF, EA-CAM, and other high-cost support mechanisms for rural telcos.

The only part of this fund that might not be a target to end is the $500 million spent each year to support rural cellular carriers. As satellite companies continue to get into the business of connecting directly to cell phones, this subsidy might also eventually be questioned.

If satellite is broadband, then the big telcos are completely free to finally dismantle rural copper. The California Public Utility Commission has been making that hard for AT&T and other telcos.

We have reached the place where satellite broadband is considered to be broadband for some purposes but not others. It will be interesting to see how long we maintain this dichotomy. I’m guessing for now that we’ll live with treating satellite differently depending on the context – but that can’t last for long.

Supreme Court Upholds the Universal Service Fund

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC has the authority to operate and fund the Universal Service Fund.

The case that prompted the Supreme Court Decision was FCC v. Consumers’ Research.  Consumers’ Research is a nonprofit activist group that originally filed cases in multiple courts alleging that the method used to fund the USF is an illegal tax since it did not arise from specific direction or approval from Congress. Consumers’ Research also argued that Congress neglected its legislative responsibility allowing the FCC to establish the size of the Universal Service Fund and to decide the method for collecting revenues to fund it.

The case made it the Supreme Court when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Consumers’ Research and said that the USF is unconstitutional. That ruling conflicted with rulings from the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits that largely blessed the FCC and the USF.

Consumers’ Research had argued that fees to fund the Universal Service Fund are a tax, and, as such, must fit a special nondelegation rule such that Congress must set a numeric fixed cap, a tax rate, or the equivalent. The Court rejected this argument. The Court points out that Section 254 directs the FCC to collect contributions that are “sufficient” to support universal service programs. The Court said the word “sufficient” acts as a cap on the amount of revenue that the FCC can collect since it can only collect money for purposes to benefit those “in rural areas and other high-cost areas (with a special nod to rural hospitals), low-income consumers, and schools and libraries.”

Consumers’ Research had argued that the Act gives the FCC boundless authority, but the Court disagreed and said that the FCC is free to periodically redefine its programs as long as those programs are aimed at accomplishing universal service goals.

Consumers’ Research also took exception to the FCC’s delegation of the USF to USAC (Universal Service Administrative Company). The Court rejected this assertion because USAC is broadly subordinate to the FCC. The FCC appoints the Board of Directors, approves the budget, and requires USAC to act consistently with FCC rules and directives.

Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the combination of Congress’s grant of authority to the FCC and the FCC’s reliance on USAC together violate the Constitution, although neither one does so alone.

Overall, the Supreme Court ruling is a total repudiation of the ruling of the Fifth Circuit. This ought to put attacks on the existence of the Universal Service Fund to rest for a while. Just as an aside, if you’ve never read a Supreme Court ruling, they are not easy reading, but worthwhile for those interested in the topic.

However, this doesn’t take the Universal Service Fund out of the news or off the hot seat. The funding mechanism for the USF is clearly broken and the fund can’t continue with fees assessed only on interstate telecom services. There are bills pending in both the House and Senate that would spread funding to broadband customers and to the biggest companies that use the web (referred as edge providers in the legislation).

Regulatory Shorts March 2024

Regulatory announcements seem to be hot and heavy these days, mostly related to a new administration.

USF Fee Increase. The FCC recently voted to increase the end-user fee used to fund the Universal Service Fund. The new fee for the second quarter of 2025 is now calculated at 36.6% of interstate telecommunications revenues. Everybody in the industry recognizes this fee as unsustainable, and there has been a lot of discussion, but no action taken to expand the base on which the fee is calculated. This may come to a head later this year since the Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that challenges whether the Universal Service Fund structure is constitutional.

Net Neutrality Now a State Issue. Add Pennsylvania to the list of states that are considering a state version of a net neutrality law in a new bill introduced into the legislature. The current states that have adopted net neutrality rules are California, Colorado, Maine, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. One of the interesting features of the Pennsylvania legislation is that it would classify ISPs as utilities, opening them to more state regulation.

Changing Regulators. FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks has announced he’ll be leaving the FCC some time this spring. Commissioner Starks is a Democrat, and the new administration is required by law to replace him with another democrat. The Senate has not yet confirmed Olivia Trusty, a Republican who is slated to fill the current open spot.

Adam Cassady has been named as the acting administrator of NTIA. Adam was formerly the chief of staff for FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington. The acting administrator slot is open until the Senate votes to confirm Arielle Roth.

Administration Support for the USF. The Trump administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court on March 13 that defends the Universal Service Fund and says that the claim the that the USF is unconstitutional is a strawman. There are legal scholars saying the Court might rule against the USF, even while the White House supports it, since this case has wider implications for other federal agencies.

Tower Dumps are Unconstitutional. A Mississippi federal judge has ruled that the law-enforcement technique known as a ‘tower’ dump’ is unconstitutional. Law enforcement agencies have often pulled large swaths of calling data in the area of crimes in the hope of identifying suspected criminals. In the case that triggered the order, the FBI had requested search warrants to pull cellular data from four carriers across nine cell towers in the hope of being able to sift through records to identify local gang members.

FCC Issues Shutdown Contingency Plan. Acknowledging this crazy year, the FCC issued a  Plan for Orderly Shutdown Due to Lapse of Congressional Appropriation. The document surprised me because the FCC is self-funded through regulatory fees, and I assumed that meant they would not be subject to a general government shutdown. And perhaps that is the case since the FCC shutdown would not happen “If prior year funds are made available.” I guess that raises the possibility that the FCC’s own funds could somehow be frozen in a larger shutdown.

 

 

Killing Hot Spots for Students

Senate Majority Leader John Thune says he hopes to bring a resolution to the Senate to repeal the funding of Internet hot spots from the E-Rate Program, which is part of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund.

The original support for funding hot spots came from a July 2024 vote of the FCC under Jessica Rosenworcel to allow the E-Rate program to pay for hot spots. For those not familiar with E-Rate, the program is used to subsidize broadband connections in schools that qualify by having a high percentage of students participating in the federal school lunch program.

The FCC’s approved plan meant that poorer school districts could fund hot spots for students and get reimbursed through the E-Rate program. The bill also allowed for other uses of hot spots, such as installing them on rural school buses.

USAC opened an application window for the hot spot program and was inundated with applications. There has been 605 applications from school districts representing 15,624 schools, asking for 714,119 hot spots. Library systems submitted 330 applications to support 2,250 libraries, asking for 96,583 hot spots.

The Congressional Review Act resolution that asks to kill the hot spot plan was sponsored by Senator Ted Cruz and other Senators. The backers of the bill claim that E-Rate was intended to help schools with broadband and should not be extended outside the school. Senator Cruz also claimed that giving hot spots to school children opened them to risks of abuse by allowing unsupervised students to go to the open Internet. This bill seems to be part of a larger effort to ban children from social media, which likely will come for a vote sometime this year.

It’s been my experience that the chance of harm to children is unlikely. Numerous school districts already provide laptops or tablets to students, and many students take them home to do homework. Every school district I’ve ever talked to uses strict filtering to make sure that computers are not used for anything other than doing homework. The computers typically are configured to only connect to the school network and nowhere else. Most school systems have those networks locked down to block open access to the Internet, and students can only see the same materials at home they see when in school. Many schools already issue hot spots and are taking the same precautions.

This bill raises a lot of questions. Might this eventually lead to forbidding the deployment of hot spots from other federal funding sources? A huge number of libraries lend hot spots to the public, and it seems likely that some of those programs get some federal funding. Librarians in rural counties universally tell me that hot spot lending is one of their most demanded services. Might this prohibition be the first step in not allowing students to take home computers?

Like other bills and initiatives currently aimed at the Universal Service Fund, this effort might soon be moot since there is a pending case at the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled on March 26, that asks if the USF is constitutional. The case asks if the FCC has the authority to establish the USF and if it can assign the administration of the fund to USAC. If the Court rules that the USF is unconstitutional, then the fund will likely go immediately dead unless Congress steps in to immediately save it.

My Predictions for 2025

Disruption of Federal Grants. It seems almost inevitable that Congress is going to pull back some or all future funding for the Digital Equity Grants that are part of the BEAD program. Some in Congress are already warning the NTIA not to award the current grants that are under review.

The BEAD grant program will change. Congress is likely to reverse some of the BEAD provisions that Senators have been complaining about, like the BEAD requirement that requires a low-rate option. However, BEAD is ultimately designed to be a state grant program, and a lot of States are going to fight hard against trying to direct funds away from fiber. With that said, it’s likely that a lot more BEAD funding will go to satellite than earlier estimates. I predict that the change of administration and a swap out of folks at NTIA is going to result in at least a six month delay in the grant process.

The FCC Will Stay the Course. The new FCC will not change the agency as much as you might expect from a change in administration. New Chairman Carr will act quickly to reverse the current FCC rulings on net neutrality and discrimination. But otherwise, there won’t be a lot of revisiting of other recent decisions. Assuming that Chairman Carr will tackle what he addressed in Project 2025, the FCC will spend a lot of energy trying to free up new 5G spectrum and investigating issues associated with Section 230 and content moderation.

Job Well Done? I predict at some point that the FCC and/or the NTIA will declare at some point this year that the rural broadband problem has largely been solved, relieving the federal government of any obligation to fund any more broadband infrastructure.

FWA Will have Another Strong Year. Some industry analysts have written off FWA cellular broadband as a temporary flash in the pan. I predict that T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T will continue to collectively add 900,000+ customers per quarter again this year. Any increased inflation in the economy will drive the FWA numbers even higher.

Universal Service Fund Will Change. I predict that the Supreme Court is going to rule that Congress erred when it gave the FCC the authority to operate the USF and to establish fees to fund it. That’s going to force Congress to scramble to revamp the popular program. Congress will be forced to fix the funding issues. I predict Congress will create a tax that will be charged against a larger base that includes large users of the Internet like Google, Microsoft, Meta, and others. All of the changes to USF will probably mean that the launch of the $9 billion 5G Fund for Rural America will be delayed or shelved for the year.

The Mad Scramble to Buy Fiber Businesses Will Continue. There is still a glut of investment capital looking for a place to land, and a lot of that money is going to be aimed at buying existing fiber-based ISPs.

RDOF Troubles. I don’t think we’re done with RDOF defaults. This might be further exacerbated by any movement by the administration to claw back RDOF funding that hasn’t resulted in infrastructure.

Cable Companies Will Tame Their Losses. While large cable companies will continue to collectively lose customers, the rate of losses will slow as the companies focus on holding their market share. The large cable companies collectively lost 265,000 customers in the third quarter of this year. However, Comcast and Charter both said they would have had small gains except for the one-time losses due to the end of ACP.

The Supreme Court Tackles the USF

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled earlier this year that the Universal Service Fund (USF) is unconstitutional. Multiple lawsuits were filed by Consumers’ Research, a conservative non-profit advocacy organization. The Supreme Court accepted the case after there were conflicting rulings on the matter. Both the 6th Circuit and 11th Circuit recently ruled in similar cases that the USF is constitutional. The original lawsuits also alleged that the FCC acted unlawfully by delegating the operation of the USF to USAC.

The heart of the lawsuits relies on the nondelegation doctrine. This is a constitutional principle that believes that Congress can’t give its legislative authority to other parts of the government. In this specific case, the challenge is that Congress erred in delegating responsibility for the USF to the FCC, which is part of the executive branch of government. The nondelegation doctrine relies on Article I of the Constitution, which grants legislative authority to Congress, and argues that Congress can’t expand or delegate that responsibility. This hasn’t been used as a legal argument since the 1930s, in lawsuits filed to try to stop Franklin Roosevelt from creating New Deal agencies.

The Universal Service Fund was specifically created as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This fund was originally created to support universal access to affordable telephone service, particularly in rural and low-income communities.

The function of the USF has been expanded over time to include four major programs: Connect America Fund, Lifeline, E-Rate and Rural Health Care. The Current USF is roughly $9 billion per year. USF is currently paying for the rest of the RDOF subsidy to build rural broadband infrastructure. The fund will also be covering the EACAM subsidy to fund faster infrastructure for rural telcos and cooperatives. The FCC recently announced it would be using USF funds to cover the $9 billion 5G Fund for Rural America.

Aside from this lawsuit, USF was already a hot topic in DC since it’s clear that the current way of funding USF is not sustainable. Currently, the USF is funded by a fee on interstate and international telecommunications services – a revenue stream that has been steadily shrinking. The new FCC Chairman Brandon Carr has been lobbying to spread the USF assessment base to include tech companies like Google and Facebook. Senator Ted Cruz, who will likely be the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, has been suggesting that the USF should be funded with general tax revenues so that Congress can have a more direct say in how the money is spent.

The USF has also been in the news as a possible vehicle for funding a low-income subsidy for broadband. The USF currently supports the Lifeline program, which provides a $9.25 subsidy for qualifying households for telephone or broadband service. There was a lot of discussion during 2024 about trying to somehow move the now-dead ACP plan into the USF. This was the plan that provided a $30 monthly subsidy for broadband bills for qualifying households.

It’s not clear what might happen if the Supreme Court rules that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to operate the USF and to assess the fees that pay for it. Congress would have to intervene somehow to keep USF alive. Congress could do this by directly funding the effort. It could also create a specific tax to pay for the fund as a replacement for the FCC fees. If Congress is forced to jump through these hoops, it also seems likely that there will be an overall review of all parts and functions of the USF. This would include the role of USAC and the operating details of each of the four major USF funds.

GAO Gives Passing Marks to USAC

USAC (the Universal Service Administration Company) was recently in the news when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the FCC’s administration of the Universal Service Fund (USF), and particularly the use of USAC to be unconstitutional.

USAC is a non-profit corporation formed by the FCC when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 created the USF. The FCC decided to create USAC to administer the fund in order to shield the day-to-day operations of the USF process from politics and the changes that always with a change in administration. USAC has a single purpose, which is to operate the Universal Service Fund under guidelines established by the FCC.

The relationship between USAC and the FCC has been under fire many times over the years. In May 2023, Senator Ted Cruz asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) to examine if USAC is properly administering the $8 billion annual USF. The GAO recently issued a report that gave high grades to USAC.

The Universal Service Fund has been somewhat controversial since its formation. However, most of the controversy comes from the directions that the FCC gives to USAC. For example, USF is funded by fees levied against interstate revenues for voice services. Over the years, as the amount of voice services has dropped, the percentage of the fee levied against voice has increased. But this can’t be blamed on USAC since the FCC determines who should pay into the fund. There are many critics who don’t like the programs funded by the USF. In this blog I have leveled a lot of criticism against some aspects of the CAF II and RDOF programs that have provided subsidies to improve rural broadband. But again, these programs were established by the FCC and not by USAC.

One controversy that had legs for many years was that the Lifeline program, which provides a $9.25 monthly subsidy to low-income households to help cover telephone or broadband bills, was paying out a lot of fraudulent claims. USAC instituted a system that verifies each month if somebody is eligible for the discount, and the controversy largely melted away. There have been complaints that ISPs have jacked up the cost of broadband or equipment being provided to schools and libraries that is paid from the USF E-Rate subsidy.

GAO undertook a broadband audit of USAC. They looked to see if USAC was operating within the guidelines established by statutes or by FCC directives. GAO looked at USAC’s budgetary process that included looking at day-to-day operations of a wide range of processes like how USAC sets fees and how it operates the many different programs funded by the USF.

The GAO gave USAC a clean bill of health. The report says that the processes at USAC align with the directives and requirements imposed by the FCC and to external auditors who routinely audit USAC. The GAO approved the process for setting goals and for reporting the use of funds to the FCC. GAO found that USAC’s budgetary process and tracking expenditure followed FCC guidelines. GEO also said that USAC was following its ethics policies.

This should quiet criticism against USAC for a while. There will always be critics of some of the aspects of the Universal Service Fund – and that includes me from time to time. But that criticism shouldn’t spill over to attacks on USAC, which seems to be doing a good job of the daily work of making USF work.

Benefits of the Universal Service Fund

The FCC recently released a short document that highlights the benefits that come from the Universal Service Fund. I have to imagine they published this in response to the Universal Service Fund being under fire by the courts and other critics. The biggest current controversy is how the USF is funded, which is mostly on the backs of telephone and cellular customers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans recently ruled, in a 9-7 vote, that the FCC’s Universal Service Fund structure is unconstitutional. If that case holds up through an appeal to the Supreme Court, the entire fund could be ended. That would force action by Congress to redefine the USF rules to keep the fund operating.

The FCC touts the following benefits from the Universal Service Fund:

E-Rate Program

This program provides subsidized broadband connectivity to schools and libraries. From 2022 to 2024, 106,000 schools and 12,597 libraries received over $7 billion in benefits to reduce the cost of broadband connectivity and internal connections. This benefitted over 54 million students.

Rural Health Care Program

This program provides discounted connections for rural nonprofit healthcare providers. From 2021 to 2023, this fund provided over $1.6 billion to benefit 16,080 health care providers with connectivity costs.

The fund also provided over $98 million in the Connected Care Pilot Program to support 107 projects that are exploring creative ways to provide telehealth services.

Lifeline Program)

As of March 2024, over 7.5 million low-income households were receiving the $9.25 monthly discount for phone and/or broadband service.

High-Cost Program

In 2023, carriers nationwide received over $4.2 billion to build infrastructure to bring better broadband to rural communities.

There are critics of some of these programs. There have been claims over the years of fraud in the Lifeline program. That may still be true to some degree, but the FCC created a fairly effective portal used to qualify Lifeline recipients that should have greatly tamped down the opportunity for fraud.

There are many who think the high-cost programs pay out too much money to rural telcos. In the past, much of this money was a simple subsidy, but more recently these funds are aimed more directly at funding rural infrastructure.

I’ve heard industry folks complain that the E-Rate Program mechanism encourages ISPs to charge higher rates for school broadband since those rates are mostly paid by the USF.