FCC Moves To Convert Phone Fund To Broadband Fund

medv4380 writes "The Federal Communications Commission is expected to change the Universal Service Fund so that the funds are directed toward broadband infrastructure instead of rural phone infrastructure. '... while the world has changed around it, USF – in too many ways – has stood still, and even moved backwards. The program is still designed to support traditional telephone service. It’s a 20th century program poorly suited for the challenges of a 21st century world.' You can see a transcript of what was presented to the FCC (PDF) online."

Does this mean everyone will have broadband?

[pcjunky]

USF is used to provide phone service at the same price for everyone anywhere even if it costs the phone company to provide the service. Anyone anywhere in rural area can get phone service at the same price. Does this mean the same will happen to broadband?

From TFA:

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The federal fund, known as the Universal Service Fund, comes from a line-item charge for phone customers, usually about $2 a month. That money goes toward building and maintaining copper-wire phone connections to remote areas that would be too costly to serve otherwise. The subsidy was created by the 1934 Communications Act, and regulators today say the fund needs to be used for high-speed Internet connections as people increasingly rely on the Web to gather information and communicate.

So, instead of paying $2 a month, so that yokels in the boonies can call each other and gossip, all them them city folks will now pay $20 a month, to subsidize broadband for folks who live on in the boonies can download porn to their ranches!?!?

[Checks Slashdot name] . . . Oh, wait, maybe it is a good idea to subsidize folks who live on ranches in the boonies.

Although, I read an article in The Economist about UNESCO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO#Controversy_and_reform [wikipedia.org] . The article said that half of the UNESCO budget never made in out of Paris, France, where the headquarters are located. I thought that was pretty amusing, until I was on a business trip in Geneva. Then we went out for lunch and waiter asked us if we worked for the UN (which was just down the road). When we said no, he treated us like unwanted, unwashed infidels. We noticed that the UN folks there were chowing down on kings' portions of food, and just got a bill for their meals, which the UN would pay for. Well, who pays the budget for the UN . . . ?

This is another trick in politics: Get someone else to pay for what you consume. When this FCC "reform" passes into law, I would be interested to see where all those dollars were being spent. But, alas, politicians do their best to avoid transparency . . .

Oh, well.

Re:Great if you can get it spent correctly

[Charliemopps]

Damned right. I've worked for 3 different telcos and in every single one of them, the most profitable department has always been "Regulatory Affairs." Obama announced his broadband stimulus program and within a few months they were waring money hats while they worked on projects that had been in planning for over 5 years. The government paid telcos to do work that the telcos had already planned to do anyway. It was a cash giveaway, nothing more. The government needs to enforce net neutrality, get the department of weights and measures involved in broadband speeds and stop giving money to private business without requiring results.