Re: Constitutionality of Universal Service Fund

On 2024-11-14 11:01 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

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?

 Public utilities are exceptions to free markets and this stuff has been
subsidized since the 1930s. The point I'm making is that it's a subsidy
to LAND, allowing residents of rural areas to live reasonably modern
lives with electricity and communications. This makes the land more
valuable, like access to transportation. Land benefits; tax land.
 I don't benefit. Don't tax my television and telecom services for the
benefit of unrelated persons elsewhere in the country.
 

I certainly see your point. I think we all tend to resent subsidizing things we expect we'll never benefit from.
Maybe you need to think of things a little differently. For instance, you've never mentioned having any kids so I assume you don't have any and therefore might be leery about helping pay for a children's hospital in your area since you would never benefit. Someone might argue that other children who you might care about - nieces, nephews, neighbour's kids, etc. - might justify chipping in whether via a donation or through tax payments. By the same token, the people who live in the boondocks might take advantage of the solitude out there to invent some marvelous new technology that makes your life easier but that wouldn't have been possible if they hadn't had access to phone and internet. Or maybe the matriarch or patriarch is a magnificent entertainer that needs the solitude to recharge their mental batteries and do top-notch work in their next show, which you really like.

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.

 I have no idea. There's also satellite access to Internet but I don't
know if families can take advantage of it.

Others in the thread seem to have answered the technical questions I raised.
--
Rhino