Re: Constitutionality of Universal Service Fund

On 2024-11-14 2:43 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Much of television is regulated by aspects of telecom law, and the
Universal Service Fund subsidy is imposed on cable subscribers who
receive telecom services from their cable company.
 This is a massive fee imposed upon telephone subscribers that pays for
rural telephone -- and these days broadband -- services. It's outrageous
and a subsidy to land from people elsewhere in the country. To the
extent that utilities must be subsidized in rural areas, tax land.
 There's now a circuit split. Previously the Supreme Court had denied
cert. Now, FCC has asked that the constitutionality of the Fund be
upheld. I hope it dies. By some estimates, there are some estimates that
the fee on the few remaining POTS subscribers could hit $75 monthly.
 https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/11/fcc-asks-court-to-uphold-constitutionality-of-nationwide-rural-phone-and-internet-subsidies/

I think I get why you object to the fee and the way it is levied. What would you do to solve the problem of providing phone and broadband service to remote locations? Leave it up to the private sector - notably Starlink? Or have you got some other idea for how services in remote areas can be provided?
I gather satellite phones are notoriously expensive although I gather Starlink is actually pretty reasonable pricewise. I'm not sure if Starlink can be used to make phone calls.
--
Rhino