An Op-Ed by Michael O’Rielly
Originally published February 26, 2025, on Inside Sources
The federal Universal Service Fund (USF), the umbrella of complex and contentious subsidy programs overseen by the Federal Communications Commission, is intended to ensure all Americans have access to the latest telecommunications services.
Yet, the USF is embroiled in multiple controversies and faces a serious constitutional challenge over certain aspects, culminating with a Supreme Court review in the spring. If the high court were to declare USF invalid, critical current and future funding indispensable to USF recipients and the entire industry would be at substantial risk.
That is why I am working with a new coalition known as Keep America Connected. With the sole purpose of facilitating the passage of a narrow, short-term USF stop-gap measure by Congress, it is not a solution for all of USF’s ills. Instead, if appropriate, it would plug any immediately identified exposures to prevent harmful outcomes until Congress can act on a larger USF reform effort.
Given our vast geography, topography and general needs, the annual $8 billion USF spending has become a touchstone in communications policy. Its explicit funding streams provide for network builds and connectivity to various communications providers and users. As such, any potential sharp cutoff of USF initiated by an adverse court decision would result in chaos and harm to American families.
To put it in perspective, USF recipients’ work — in rural and urban areas nationwide — could stop. Companies could face financial ruin and their customers could see services curtailed or disconnected. Loans contingent on such funding — many subsidized by the federal government — could default. Broadband expansion efforts to many unserved households would end. Student testing and internet services funded by USF could cease. Veterans and families in healthcare islands would see telemedicine and advanced imagery dry up. Congressional funding to eliminate concerns over Chinese infiltration becomes useless if the underlying networks go dark from USF’s demise.
Suffice it to say nearly every aspect in the communications sphere — from providers and vendors to manufacturers and consumers — would be hit by a brisk nullification of USF.
In fairness, USF faces challenges that need proper attention and careful consideration. Those issues are relatively well-known, and potential solutions are being explored by knowledgeable members of the House and Senate.
Nothing in Keep America Connected’s targeted effort should be interpreted as affecting larger reform efforts. Still, it seems like wishful thinking to expect any such reforms to be ready and enacted before a potentially disastrous Supreme Court decision. Given USF’s importance, this puts the communications sector and the millions of Americans who rely on it in an awful position. As a remedy, the Keep America Connected effort merely seeks to prevent policymakers from being forced to consider sweeping reforms on the fly. It endeavors to preserve the status quo until larger USF reform is either ready or not prudent.
Moreover, support for Keep America Connected does not mean that the problems with USF should be swept under the rug. Its critics argue it improperly funds certain services beyond the mission asked of it by Congress; is prone and subject to waste, fraud and abuse; and needs to be modernized to reflect the marketplace for communications services.
Many conservatives understand the petitioners’ arguments in the current court case and share some sympathies.
Repairing all the pending issues with USF, including poor distribution and broader funding structure, cannot be done by throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. The bluntness of a court decision does not lend itself to fixing USF’s infirmities.
Contrary to what anyone may suggest, a Supreme Court victory by those challenging USF’s configuration would not necessarily result in the ultimate relief the parties seek. Indeed, the goal of firefighters is to put fires out, not rebuild the entirety of the foundation. Without a USF plug in place before the court’s decision, petitioners should be worried that rushed reactive congressional action is worse than the current structure.
Legal challenges are inevitable when Congress or regulatory agencies make complex communications policy changes. USF is no exception. The risk that USF could be abruptly and arbitrarily turned off, resulting in painful outcomes for millions and the connectivity companies that service them, calls for Congress to address the immediate issue. This can and should be enacted without dismissing USF’s real problems.
Michael O’Rielly served as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013 to 2020. He is an advisor to KACC. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.