Viewpoints
Making sure every citizen has access to the information economy is a fundamental concept that Congress has locked into law.
By: Gary Bolton, President and CEO, Fiber Broadband Association (FBA)
Ensuring universal access to voice, internet, and emergency communications services should be something that requires no debate. It is a bedrock concept that Congress has locked into the law for a century as broadband has become the primary conduit to access local, state, and federal government services, setup a doctor’s appointment, pay your taxes, and interact with your school system, just to name a few examples.
Making sure every citizen, regardless of geographic location or income, has access to the information economy is not a luxury, but a necessity, given the dependence our society and its most vital institutions have built upon it. It is a fundamental concept that Congress has locked into law for a century. You need look no further than Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934: “to make available, so far as possible to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”
The FCC established the first Universal Service Fund (USF) program over 40 years ago, and Congress, in enacting the Telecommunications Act of 1996, created our modern USF programs – High-Cost, E-Rate, Lifeline, and Rural Telehealth — to address the digital divide, making sure that everyone had a fair shot to get online. But the FCC is now considering cutting back USF.
Even before the 1996 Act, the FCC’s $4.5 billion High-Cost program was critical to ensuring rural and remote communities received the same telecommunications services as urban and suburban areas. It gave true meaning to the “universal service” concept – every American should be connected to our communications network. The High-Cost program distributes support to carriers in rural areas where the market alone can’t support the expense of deploying network infrastructure and providing connectivity. The FCC is now reviewing and considering reforming, and possibly limiting, the High-Cost program.
In response, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association, which represents around 850 locally operated broadband and communications service providers, small businesses operating in 44 states and covering some of the most rural populations in America, weighed in forcefully to preserve key elements of the program.
Data confirms that the High-Cost program has been highly effective and efficient in fulfilling the statutory obligation of service, states NTIA, enabling rural broadband providers to deploy modern networks that deliver robust and reliable broadband and voice connectivity to rural communities where the business case would not otherwise support investment in services reasonably comparable to those available in urban areas. These modernized networks support precision agriculture, economic development, telehealth, education, and “personal relationships without which rural communities cannot thrive,” according to the August 4, 2026, NTCA comments filed with the FCC.
The Association goes on to note that demand for broadband continues to grow “exponentially,” with the growth of AI and other future applications demanding modern networks with symmetrical speeds or else risk leaving rural communities once again behind their urban counterparts.
NTCA is recommending extending the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) I Program, establishing a comprehensive long-term framework for High-Cost support, updating the FCC’s cost model to reflect current deployment and operating costs, and ensuring support remains sufficient and predictable to sustain affordable, high-quality broadband and voice services in rural America.
WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband, representing more than 360 rural telecommunications companies throughout the United States, also noted within its comments that Congress’s mandate to the FCC was to ensure that all Americans, both rural and urban, have access to communications services, to comparable services at comparable rates, and that any network mechanism must be stable, predictable, and specific, with the High-Cost Program continuing to be necessary to maintain and operate rural networks.
The Fiber Broadband Association (FBA) noted in its High-Cost program comments that the program’s minimum speed standards haven’t kept pace with how Americans use broadband. Today, two out of three customers choose 200 Mbps of faster speeds, with only 7% picking 100 Mbps or less. By 2030, most households are expected to have and use gigabit speeds.
Simply maintaining the status quo is not a viable option given statutory universal service provisions and the growing need for more broadband in an AI “Thinking Economy” era. The FBA asserted in its comments that to comply with the law the FCC must update its speed standards to reflect current use and future growth, helping to ensure rural networks have access to networks that meet today’s standards and tomorrow’s requirements.
Without USF support, NTCA explained that rural household costs would balloon, and subscribership would decline, leading to higher per-user rates for the remaining subscribers and ultimately leading to a downward spiral in service availability and reliability. Communications service providers also must spend money after networks are initially deployed since facilities need periodic upgrades to keep pace with reasonably comparable urban networks in terms of speed and functionality. Policy makers cannot and should not assume that hardware has an unlimited lifetime and will never become obsolete, as we’ve seen demonstrated from the sunsetting and migration of other communications technologies over the decades.
NTCA also points out that the BEAD program is a complement to but not a replacement for USF funding. Some service providers have built rural non-BEAD locations using private capital and loans and will still need USF to cover higher operational costs incurred when operating in rural areas with low population density.
The High-Cost program is not the only USF program at risk. I spoke with Joseph Wender, Executive Director of the Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition, on a recent Fiber for Breakfast podcast about the FCC’s proposal to limit E-Rate support, despite its long track record of ensuring schools and libraries are connected to vital communications services and bipartisan support in Congress.
Educational institutions are especially reliant on high-speed broadband for essential services such as conducting standardized testing, monitoring building security and safety, and providing the primary communications conduit between parents and teachers. Homework is no longer eaten by the dog and parents can review the progress of their children on a schedule of their choosing, rather than simply getting intermittent progress reports and quarterly report cards.
It’s important to remember that school internet services do more than just provide access for students and teachers, but are an integral part of the building’s infrastructure, providing communications for the security system, HVAC, and other services, including access control systems for the doors and staff badge systems.
The FCC’s proposal to limit the E-Rate program makes no policy sense and would be contrary to Congressional intent for the program. Congress was explicit that the E-Rate program must operate to support the provision of critical services connecting schools and libraries throughout the U.S.
Given modern society’s dependence on broadband access for daily and essential functions such as banking, health care, and education, we need to make sure that those who are the most challenged are not locked out. USF support is necessary to make sure the door is open for everyone.
