More

Connect America Fund: FCC Unveils Rules For Rural Broadband Fund

Connect America Fund

MARCY GORDON   10/27/11 04:05 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have unveiled a plan for overhauling the $8 billion fund that subsidizes phone service in rural areas and for the poor. It redirects the money toward broadband expansion.

The Federal Communications Commission's plan, adopted Thursday, establishes a new "Connect America Fund" for mobile telephone and broadband in rural communities and needy areas.

The money will continue to come from a surcharge on consumers' and businesses' monthly phone bills. Rates should stay flat or decline for most consumers, FCC officials said. The size of the fund will be capped at $4.5 billion annually. To receive money for network expansions into designated areas, telecommunications companies will be required to enter a bidding competition.

The FCC also approved new rules for the complex system that governs how phone companies pay each other for phone calls.

The changes represent the Obama administration's most significant overhaul of telecommunications regulations.

The administration has identified universal broadband as critical to driving economic development, producing jobs and expanding the reach of cutting-edge medicine and educational opportunities.

Overhaul of the system has been held up for years by competing interests.

The new fund will underwrite the cost of building and operating high-speed Internet networks in places that are too sparsely populated to justify costly corporate investments. It will include a $500 million "mobility fund" earmarked to help build mobile broadband networks in areas where businesses won't invest.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski called the action "a momentous step in our efforts to harness the benefits of broadband for every American." It will enhance the U.S. position in a "fiercely competitive" global economy, he said before the 4-0 vote.

The agency estimates that the program will bring high-speed Internet access to about 7 million people living in rural areas over the next six years and will create some 500,000 jobs.

In addition, Genachowski said, changing the system governing how phone companies pay each other for calls will eliminate billions of dollars in "hidden subsidies" in phone bills and put millions back in consumers' pockets.

The current system, virtually everyone in the industry agrees, is outdated and leads to perverse schemes by carriers to stimulate certain kinds of phone traffic.

"I don't expect that overall consumer rates will go up as a result of this" action, Genachowski told reporters after the meeting.

The agency estimates that the curbs on fees the phone companies pay each other will save consumers $2.2 billion a year. That assumes that the companies will pass on a substantial portion of their savings to consumers, FCC staff said.

Some consumers may pay on average an additional 10 to 15 cents a month on their bills, the agency said. No additional charges will be imposed on low-income consumers or anyone whose phone bill is $30 a month or more.

The Universal Service Fund was created to ensure that all Americans have access to a basic telephone line. It assumed its current form in 1996, but the idea of it has been around since the early 20th century. The program subsidizes phone service for the poor and pays for Internet access in schools, libraries and rural health clinics. But more than half the money goes to pay phone companies that provide phone service in rural places where lines are supposedly unprofitable.

Charles McKee, a Sprint vice president for regulatory affairs, said that by curbing the "wasteful traffic-pumping schemes" among carriers, the FCC plan will help foster a robust and efficient market for voice and broadband services.

Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group, said it was concerned that the new program "will lead to higher prices at a time when the average American is watching every penny."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have unveiled a plan for overhauling the $8 billion fund that subsidizes phone service in rural areas and for the poor. It redirects the money toward broadband ex...
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have unveiled a plan for overhauling the $8 billion fund that subsidizes phone service in rural areas and for the poor. It redirects the money toward broadband ex...
Filed by Ramona Emerson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 83
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
09:28 AM on 10/30/2011
"How about making home connection­s synchronou­s instead of asynchrono­us - and without rating the prices?"

You still use asynchronous connections in America? Last time I had asynchronous Internet was 10 years ago.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
09:49 AM on 10/29/2011
In fact, I think Rural America should have to pay back it's "rural electrification" BAILOUT money.

They were so against even the auto bailouts that saved GM and Chrysler, I'm sure they'd feel wrong about not paying back every penny we spent to subsidize their electrification.

After all, they aren't electric "deadbeats" or "welfare queens" who would want to live off of someone else's dime via a tyrannically imperial federal government, right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
drumz
Those little red panties they pass the test
12:44 PM on 10/30/2011
Great point!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
09:36 AM on 10/29/2011
Why should we subsidize rural internet?

Isn't that exactly the type of wasteful spending most rural, TEA partiers love to complain about?

The free market should bring them broadband.

I object to my tax dollar going to those people who just want a hand out.
10:50 PM on 10/28/2011
What do they consider high speed, 5mbps? America couldn't sell their high speed broadband overseas. In 20 years the US may hit where Japan and Korea are now, but in a few years Japan and Korea's BB will be 200x faster than America's.
07:05 PM on 10/28/2011
Yes! lets get all this speed going so everyone can get to the download cap faster. It makes no sense to make something faster with cap limits. Lift the limits 1st.
12:13 PM on 10/28/2011
rednecks dont need broadband
photo
L I Beral
Here comes the Sun
02:06 PM on 10/28/2011
It's science - they don't believe in it. Especially if you tell them Al Gore invented it.
photo
helioszephyr
What do you mean by "micro"?!
10:49 AM on 10/29/2011
they think it's an all female music performing group.
photo
PenguinLinux
got root ?
11:23 AM on 10/28/2011
How about making home connections synchronous instead of asynchronous - and without rating the prices?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wayne Caswell
Consumer Advocate & Founder of Modern Health Talk
09:17 PM on 10/28/2011
The whole reason it's asynchronous is that carriers fear competing against user-generated content from smartphones and $200 camcorders that can broadcast in HD.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
No Yards
I never said most of the things I said.
11:14 AM on 10/28/2011
BB Internet access should be a constitutional right, matter of fact the 2nd amendment should be changed to replace "arms" with "BB Internet access", as the purpose of the 2nd amendment was so the people could protect themselves from tyrants both local and foreign, and in these days access to the Internet and knowledge will accomplish that goal far better than a few squirrely rifles and side arms.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
benji85
11:51 AM on 10/28/2011
It's sad, when the Constitution was written, the framers recognized the importance in the exchange of information, thus establishing Congress' right to establish post offices, but today they are hesitant to allow a clean and open way to do the same thing with modern technology.
09:50 AM on 10/28/2011
3 words. ITS ABOUT TIME!
I am an American living in Europe, i have been here 11 years, and upon visiting family back in the US i found that in a lot of places we are far behind countries like Germany, France, and the UK as far as technological advancements that have been implemented and infrastructure development, 'FAR BEHIND', and when our President decided to do something we saw how far the lobbyist have gotten their hands into our government and the policies, and what politicians and political party they have bought.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
benji85
09:27 AM on 10/28/2011
Here's the ridiculous part of it, they will open up VoIP in rural parts of the country, regulated in the same FCC Title II - telecommunications carrier, which is basically a form of net neutrality geared for phone service only, but is still going to keep broadband regulated as a Title I - information service, which is according to the courts outside the jurisdiction of the FCC. Even though VoIP is carried over the exact same line as broadband, and typically offered by the same company providing the Internet access.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wayne Caswell
Consumer Advocate & Founder of Modern Health Talk
09:23 AM on 10/28/2011
Competition - That's a better way to get BB into rural areas, including competition from municipalities. But many states have laws banning municipalities from installing public BB nets, even when big carriers see their market as too small to profit from, thanks to Bell company lobbyists. Without real competion, we'll continue to lose our world BB ranking (now down to 22nd). Google "Big Broadband: Public Infrastructure or Private Monopolies."
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
RattleCat
Part of the Mittless Protection Program
08:45 AM on 10/28/2011
Every time a carrier wants something that raises regulatory concerns, they promise to expand service to rural areas in exchange for approvals. And they never do. It always comes down to the taxpayer funding said expansions. Its time for the FCC to change its tune.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
03:07 AM on 10/28/2011
I get the plan, and it might actually make sense. However,

How do they get this 500,000 jobs created figure? That sounds ridiculous. $4.5 billion / 500K = 9,000 dollars per employee per year. That works great in China, but this is America. I don't see anyone taking a job in the telephone business for that kind of salary.

Is it really worth 4.5 billion a year to enhance p@rn downloads in the country?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
blurredmolly
Was you ever bit by a dead bee?
08:14 AM on 10/29/2011
no, lets just let the rest of the world lap us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Harvey
Don't F with the Jesus
08:31 AM on 10/29/2011
I didn't say we shouldn't do the plan, I just said they should lay off the absurd job creation figures that even a fifth grader could shoot down.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
09:42 AM on 10/29/2011
No, under NO circumstances should the government be in the business of internet welfare.

Stop looking for broadband handouts and take personal responsibility for your own lack of internet.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
Better to die fighting, than live on knees
12:52 AM on 10/28/2011
again, like with the phones, we will pay for it, and the corporations get it given to them, and profit dearly off it at our expense. Land of the free, for the rich that is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dalton Perry
02:16 AM on 10/28/2011
Actually I see this helping small businesses a ton. It gives tiny businesses in the middle of no where to advertise, buy, sell, communicate and more to the entire world. The places this will bring broadband to will be places that aren't profitable for big business. Yes big business will probably get a few good things out of this, but the true benefactor will be rural America.
12:22 AM on 10/28/2011
Yes! lets get all this speed going so everyone can get to the download cap faster. It makes no sense to make something faster with cap limits. Lift the limits 1st.