ITIF-通過(guò)終止過(guò)時(shí)的寬帶計(jì)劃來(lái)維持負(fù)擔(dān)得起的連接（英）

Sustain

Affordable

Connectivity

By

EndingObsolete

Broadband

ProgramsJOEKANE

|

JULY2023Newbroadbandfunding

programsnecessitatedramaticreformsto

oldprograms.We

shouldreverse

thestatusquoandsustaintheAffordable

ConnectivityProgrambyshrinking

theredundanthodgepodgeoffederalbroadbandprograms.KEY

TAKEAWAYS...Federalbroadbandsubsidyprogramsareamessof

redundanciesandhavespenttoomuch

money

tohavefailedtoclosethegeographicdigitaldivide.BEADhassufficientfundingto

connectallruralareas,assumingit

employstechnologiesthatcanreachthemat

reasonablecosts.SinceBEADmakesotherbroadbanddeploymentfundingsuperfluous,Congressshoulddiscontinue

otherhigh-costdeploymentprograms,

includingat

theFCC

and

DepartmentofAgriculture...AfterBEADiscompleted,

theAffordableConnectivityProgram(ACP)should

betheonlyongoing

subsidyprogram.

Congressshoulduse

fundingfrom

obsoleteprograms,around$6.43billion,

to

make

theACPsustainable.Subsidiesalonewillneverclosethewholedigitaldivide.Individualswillhavenonfinancialreasonsfornotconnecting,whichwillrequiretargeteddigital

inclusionefforts,notjustspendingmore

money.CONTENTSKeyTakeaways

1Introduction

2TheBroadband

WorldHasChanged

3USFReformIs

Inevitable

3THEACPShouldBecomethePremierFederalBroadbandProgram

4BEADReplacesHigh-CostandOtherRuralSubsidyPrograms

5OtherRuralBroadbandProgramsAreDuplicativeandIneffective

5NGSOSatellitesCanServeVery

RemoteAreas

7Lifeline

IsNowRedundant

7TheNumbersandPracticalSteps

8SubsidiesAloneWillNot

Close

theEntireDigitalDivide

9Conclusion

10Endnotes

11INTRODUCTIONThefederalgovernmentspendsalotof

moneyon

broadband.To

someextent,thismakes

sense:Broadbandisnowanecessityforparticipationin

theeconomyandsocietyandameansofdoingeverythingfromaccessinghealthcaretochattingwithdistantlovedones.Withso

muchat

stake,

it

is

more

importantthanevertoensurethatbroadbandfundinghelpsthosewhoneedit,andthe

rightprogramsaresustainable.Asthingsnowstand,federalbroadbandprogramsare

dangerouslyoutof

balance.Congresshascreated

some

relativelyeffectivesubsidyprogramsthatrenderolderprogramsduplicativeandwasteful.Yet,

theoldprogramspersist,siphoningfundingawayfrommoreeffectiveonesandincreasingphonebills.Inparticular,

theBroadbandEquity,Access,andDeployment(BEAD)programwillfinishdeployingbroadband

toruralareas,

sotheUniversalService

Fund’s(USF’s)High-Costprogramand

theDepartmentofAgriculture’srecurringReConnectprogramareredundant.

TheAffordableConnectivityProgram(ACP),anexpandedversion

oftheUSFequivalentLifeline,

is

runningoutofmoney.And

theUSFfundingmechanisms—ataxonconsumersof

telecommunicationsservices—is

distortive.Congressshoulddothefollowing:1.

Discontinue

theHigh-Cost,Lifeline,ReConnect,andallother

(nontribal)federalprogramstargetingbroadbanddeploymentorindividualbroadbandaffordability.2.

Appropriatefundingequivalentto

those

programs’averageannualspendingtosustaintheACP.3.

Modifythesizeof

andeligibilityfortheACPbenefittomakeupforanyremainingshortfall.INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE2THE

BROADBAND

WORLD

HAS

CHANGEDOverthe

lastdecade,the

UnitedStateshasmade

greatstridestowarduniversalbroadbanddeploymentandthe

societalbenefitsthatcomewithit.1

U.S.broadbandranksamongthebestintheworldfordeploymentandspeedat

relativelyaffordableprices.2Private

investmentby

for-profitbroadbandprovidershasdriventhesedevelopments,butfederalbroadbandsubsidieshaveplayed

theirpart,

especiallyinhelpingdefraythe

highcostsofreachingruralareas.Nevertheless,someruralareasare

stillonthewrong

sideofthedigitaldivide.TheInformation

TechnologyandInnovation

Foundation(ITIF)

has

longargued

thata“l(fā)arge,one-time

injection

offederalcapital…tosucceedinbridgingtheruralbroadbanddivide”shouldalsoserveasa“transitionawayfromtheFCC’sUniversalServiceFund.”3

In2021,Congressdid

thefirstpart

whenit

fundedBEADas

partoftheInfrastructureInvestmentandJobsAct(IIJA).4

BEADis

a$42.45billionprogramwiththeexplicitmandatetoprovidebroadbandaccesstoallAmericanhouseholds.5The

ACP

has

made

Lifeline

redundant.

BEAD

will

make

High-Cost

programs

futile.

Therefore,policymakers

should

preserve

and

strengthen

the

ACP

and

abolish

the

FCC’s

High

Cost

andLifeline

programs.Anothermajorcategory

of

federalbroadbandsubsidiestargets

low-incomeAmericanswithhelppaying

forservice.Congressalsoexpandedthistypeofsubsidyin

theIIJA

withtheACP.6Thesethreedevelopments(expansiveprogressin

broadbanddeployment,

BEAD,andtheACP)haveradicallychanged

thestatusquo

frompastdecades.It

is,therefore,

timeforradicalrethinkingandreformoffederalbroadbandsubsidyprograms.Inshort,theACPhasmadeLifelineredundant.BEADwillmakeHigh-Costprograms

futile.Therefore,policymakersshouldpreserveandstrengthentheACPandpayforit

byabolishingtheFederalCommunicationsCommission’s

(FCC’s)HighCostandLifelineprogramsandotherfederalprograms

suchas

ReConnect.BEADisthe

large,one-time

injection

thatcanbreakthiscycle

ofineffective

spending,so

itssuccessshould

comewiththefadingawayofsomeoftheUSF’slargestprograms.USF

REFORM

IS

INEVITABLEUSFreformisno

longeroptional.

Withthe

30percent“contribution

factor”(effectivelythe

taxrateon

Americans’phone

bills)placingamuch

largerburdenonconsumersofallincomelevelsthanin

thepast,somethingmustgive.7

Clearlyrecognizingtheineffectivenessofthepastandthepromiseof

legislativelyappropriatedfunds

willleadtoafuture

ofgreaterconnectivityforlessmoney.Otherproposalstoexpandthebase

ofUSFcontributionsto

includebroadbandservice

oronlinecontent

wouldsimplyreshufflethe

samebadscheme:Theywouldchangehowthecheck

iswritten,but

theywouldnotalleviatethe

totalburdenonconsumers.8

Broadbandsubsidiesareapolicychoicethatshould

beadopted

andfunded

byCongressinthe

samewayotherfederalprioritiesare.INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE3Transitioning

fromtheUSFcontribution

factorto

generalappropriation

wouldalsofixtheregressivenatureofthecurrentsystem.Today,USFfeesareleviedontelecommunicationsservices

ataflatrate.Thisstructureis

markedlydifferentfromthebroadprogressivetaxsystemthatfundsotherfederalprograms.

Indeed,

insofarasreformproposalsseekto“broadenthebase”ofbroadbandsubsidyfunding,broadening

ittoalltaxpayersis

thebestbase

ofall.THE

ACP

SHOULD

BECOME

THE

PREMIER

FEDERAL

BROADBAND

PROGRAMThebestsubsidiesprovidedirect,

flexiblesupporttoindividualswhoneed

it.The

ACPdoesjustthatby

givingqualifyinghouseholdsupto

$30permonthforbroadbandserviceand

one-time$100supportforbuyingabroadband-capabledevice.TheACPalsogivesconsumersachoicetousethatmoneyforeitherfixedormobile

service

so

thatthey

canpickthe

connectivitythatworksbestforthem.TheACPis,

therefore,exactlythe

sortofbroadbandprogram

thatcanalleviateaffordabilitybarrierstobroadband

access.Buttheprogramisrunningoutofmoney.Theoriginal$17billionappropriatedin2021

is

likelyto

rundrysometimein2024.9

Evencomingclosetoalapse

infundingwill

permanentlyhamstringthe

program,sincebroadbandproviderswillhave

tonotifyrecipientsand

ramp

downtheirservice.Thiswillbreak

thetrustthatisan

essentialcomponentinkeepingindividualsconnected;

losingtheirbroadbandfundingwilllikelymake

Americansfeelcheatedand

suspiciousof

theprogrameven

if

iteventuallyrestarts.10It

is

possible

and

necessary

for

Congress

to

find

$5

billion

to

$6

billion

from

current

subsidy

programsto

fund

the

ACP.

This

quest

should

be

a

primary

goal

for

policymakers

interested

in

closing

thedigital

divide.Beyondthisbreachof

trust,alapse

inACP-funded

plans

isunlikelytogoperfectlysmoothly,

andtheconsequencesoferrorswould

fallon

the

mostfinanciallyvulnerable.

Manyhouseholdshavesignedup

forthe

free

orcheapplansprovided

throughtheACPpreciselybecausetheycannotaffordafull-costplanon

theirown.If

the

ACPispulledback,someof

thosehouseholdsmaybeaccidentallyleftonan

Internetplanin

theensuingconfusionor

notbeadequatelyinformedoftherollbackin

time

tocanceltheirplan.11

Thesearefinanciallyvulnerablehouseholdswhosefinancesor

creditscorescouldbeharmedif

theysuddenlyfaceabillforevenamonthortwoofunsubsidizedbroadbanduse.If

generatingawarenessofsubsidyprogramshasbeenachallenge,gettingthewordout

abouttheirend

shouldbeat

leastequallyashard—anditwouldbeinexcusable

fortheACP

toleaveanyhouseholdsworseoffthantheywereto

beginwithbecauseofadministrativesnafus.Finally,subsidyprogramsdonotoperateinavacuum.TheCapitalProjectsFundestablishedintheAmericanRescuePlanActputsmuch

ofthe$10billion

intobroadband

buildoutsthatexplicitlyhingesonthoseprojectsbeingtied

to

theACP.12

More

than$42billioninBEADfunding

is

indirectlytied

totheACP

throughthe

mandate

thatan

affordablelow-costoptionbeprovidedwithnewbuilds.13

Thesemanybillionsofdollarsarealreadyslatedfordisbursementandeffectivelyhavebeen

“spent,”

andthe

successoftheprogramsthey

fundwillbeunderminedbyinterruptionsin

thelow-costprogramto

which

they're

tied.

Allthis

meansanyinterruption

toACP

funding—even

justatemporaryone—carriesenormousrisk.INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE4Byoneestimate,theACP

needs$6billionperyeartocontinue.

Itispossibleandnecessaryfor14Congressto

find$5billionto$6billionbyrestructuringcurrentsubsidyprogramsadministeredthrough

theUSFanddirectlybyexecutivebranch

agencies.Thisquestshouldbeaprimarygoalforpolicymakersinterestedinclosingthedigitaldivide.Aswewillsee,

thebulkof

thisfundingcancomefromcuttingotherredundantorfutileprogramswithoutincreasing

financialburdenson

Americans.It

mayalsobe

necessary,however,to

fine-tunetheACP

to

maximizeits

efficiency.Forexample,theACP’sgeneralgoalshouldbetogivenecessaryassistanceto

low-income

individuals,but

moreresearch

isneededtodetermineitscurrenteffectivenessand

howitcouldbebettertargeted

withoutcreatingadministrativebarrierstoaccess.BEAD

REPLACES

HIGH-COST

AND

OTHER

RURAL

SUBSIDY

PROGRAMSThecentralchallengeofclosingtherural-urban

digitaldivide

is

theeconomicfactthattheup-frontexpenseofdeployingbroadband

infrastructureisoften

toohightojustifyservingareaswithasmallernumberofpotentialbroadbandsubscribers.Therefore,

ifpolicymakersareinclined

toensure

these

areasgetserviceanyway,governmentsubsidiesarenecessary.

Butup-frontcostsonlyneed

tobepaidonce:Thesecapitalexpenditures(CAPEX)aredistinctfromoperatingexpenditures(OPEX)thatareassociatedwiththecostof

anInternetservice

provider(ISP)running

itsnetwork(e.g.,

customerservice,maintenance,billing,etc.).The

goal

of

rural

broadband

subsidies

should

be

to

eliminate

their

necessity.Givenapolicygoalof

universalconnectivitywithtraditionalbroadbandtechnologies,

there

isacaseforsubsidizingCAPEX:Ifwecan

pay

togetmoderatelyhigh-costruralareasoverthehumpofup-frontcosts,

then

they—and

therestof

society—cangetthebenefitsof

theirbeingonline,whichcan

(eventually)exceedthecostofthesubsidyitself.Thesameisnottrue

forOPEXsubsidies.Anetworkthatcanneverbecomeself-sufficientwillperpetuallybenefitthe

areasthatreceivethe

subsidy,butonlyat

theperpetualexpenseofeveryoneelse.Everyoneisfreeto

livewheretheylike,butit

is

lessclearthattheirfellowcitizensshouldhaveto

subsidizethatdecision.Luckily,BEADispoisedtotake

therightapproach

byfundingCAPEX,asnecessary,

toreachmostAmericans,withthe

remainderbeingableto

access

improvedsatellitebroadband.BEADwill

invest$42.45billion,withdeploymenttoallAmericansasitsfirstpriority(although,asweargue,

thepriorityshould

bedeploymentto

mostAmericans,

with

satelliteservice

fortheremainingtrulyhigh-costhouseholds).Other

Rural

Broadband

Programs

Are

Duplicative

and

IneffectiveCompareBEAD’sscopeandresourceswithotherfederalprogramstargeted

atprovidingbroadband

inruralareas.

Mostnotably,

theFCC’sprogramsundertheHigh-Costfund

routinelyspendupwardsof$4.5billionper

year,withnoend

insight.Thegoalofruralbroadbandsubsidiesshouldbe

toeliminatetheirnecessity.

In

thatsense,

thelongevityofHigh-Costprogramsisevidenceoftheirfailure.INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE5ButbroadbanddeploymentprogramsarenotlimitedtotheFCC.In

May2023,nineagenciesreportedtotheNationalTelecommunicationsand

InformationAdministration(NTIA)howmuchbroadband

funding

they

paidoutinFY2021,

totaling$6.7billionspentthrough37programs.15Thirteenagenciesprovideddataonbroadband-relatedfundingforFY2021.16

Ofthoseprograms,only10provideddataon

thenumberof

subscriptionsgeneratedby

funding,whensuchdatashouldbethecruxof

an

effectivelydesigned,

successfulbroadbandprogram.Ina2022report,theU.S.GovernmentAccountabilityOffice(GAO)deemedU.S.federalbroadbandefforts“fragmentedandoverlapping,”pointingat

sixprogramsdesigned

exclusivelyfordeployment.17

GAOfurtherremarkedthatat

least133fundingprogramsunder15agencieshavebroadbandas

atleastoneofmanypotentialuses,or

could

beused

to

supportbroadbandaccess

insomeway.18Theseprogramsarenot

necessarilyalwaysduplicative,

butaligningand

streamliningprogramswouldenablemorecollaboration,bettertrackingofsubscriptionsgenerated,

andmorepeopletobeservedatlesscost.

19Thepricetag

forbroadbanddeploymentsubsidieshasaddedup

fasterthan

theirsuccesses.VariousprogramsundertheHigh-Costprogramalonehavespentmanybillionsofdollarsondeployment,sometimeson

“over-building”(buildinganetworkinplacesthatalreadyhavebroadbandservice).TheRuralDigitalOpportunityFundprovidesfinancialsupporttoconnectrurallocationsand

hasupwardsof

$6billionin

totalfunding

obligatedtobe

paidoutthroughthenextdecade.20

TheConnectAmericaFund,whichsupportsthedeploymentofvoiceandbroadbandservicesinunserved

areas,has$1.2billionobligated

infundingfrom2019through2029.21

TheAlternativeConnectAmericaCostModel(ACAM)providesfundingtoISPsthatmeetparticularruralbuildoutrequirementsandhasspent$4billionsince2017.22

Itsnewermodel,ACAMII,hasspent$2billionsince2019.23

Becausesome

ofACAM’sdefinedbuildoutrequirementsare

slowerthanBEAD’sdefinitionof

“fullyserved,”eligible

locationscouldendupbeingsuccessfullyfundedfordeploymentonlyto

remainunderservedunderBEAD.24The

High-Cost

program

is

now

obsolete,

so

Congress

should

eliminate

it

and

appropriate

theapproximate

yearly

spending

to

fund

the

ACP.Inaddition,theU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)offersitsownsuite

ofprograms.Chiefamong

themis

theReConnectProgram,whichoffersbothloansandgrantsforeligibleruraldeploymentandhasinvested$3.9billion

overall.25

Butattimes

thespendinghasbeenupwardsof$300,000perhousehold.26

TheCommunityConnectGrantProgram

providesassistancetoproviders

offeringservicetoeconomicallyvulnerable,unservedareasandhasatotalof$97millionobligated

infunding.27

Ofthat,$17.5millionwasspentinFY2021.28IfHigh-Costand

theotherdeploymentprogramsweregoingtogetruralAmericaovertheup-front-costhump,

theywouldhavedonesoby

now.

A2017FCCpaperfoundthatwecouldconnect98percentoflocationsto

fiberbroadbandfor$40billion.29

Yet,wehavenowspentatleastthatmuchthrough

variousfederalprogramsandstillfindtheneedformore

funding.Infact,$44billionin

federalmoneywasinvested

in

broadbandfrom2015to2020alone,andthere

arestillwide,unaddressed

gaps

inbroadbanddeployment.30INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE6Ratherthanpouring

moreofthesameintotheold,never-finisheddeploymentprograms,BEADwilldroptheequivalentof

10yearsof

High-Costspendingallat

once,

leavingnoexcusenottoreachallareasthatcan

reasonablybe

reachedwithCAPEXsubsidies.Therefore,

theHigh-Costprogramisnowobsolete,

soCongressshouldbringtheprogram’sfundingintotheTreasury,eliminate

it,andappropriatetheapproximateyearlyspendingto

fundtheACP.FundingtheACPinstead

oftheHigh-Costandotherdeploymentprogramsisnotanabandonmentof

ruralbroadband.Indeed,theACP

willcomplementBEAD’seffortstodeploybroadband

infrastructure.

Guaranteedavailabilityof

subscribersenhancestheincentiveforproviders

topursuethemandwillencourage

more

competition

forBEADfunds,whichwilllikelylowerthetotalcostof

servingallareas.NGSO

Satellites

Can

Serve

Very

Remote

AreasTherewillalwaysbecertainareasforwhichCAPEXsubsidiestosustainordeploywirelineorevenfixed-wirelessnetworksaretoo

expensive.Andyetthefederalgovernmentappearswillingtoprovidefundingfornetworksintheseareas,sometimesat

the

costofhundredsofthousandsofdollarsper

location.31

This

isfiscallyirresponsible.Whiletheseareasshould

notbeleftoutofthequestforuniversalbroadband,thepreviouslymentionedprograms’commitmentto

fibertothepremisesat

suchgreatcostsshouldnot

continue.Under

no

circumstances

should

a

program

pay

more

than

$15,000

per

household.

Any

location

abovethat

threshold

would

certainly

be

better

served

by

satellite.Theadventofnon-geostationaryorbit

(NGSO)satellites

willmakebroadbandavailabletoeventhemostremotepartsoftheUnitedStates,withcomparable

speedand

latencyto

terrestrialtechnologies.NGSOconstellationsalleviate

thehighlatencyassociatedwithgeostationarysatellitebroadband,

and

theycanprovidespeedandlatencycomparableto

many

terrestrialtechnologies.32

Today,theseservicesare

characterizedbysomewhathighup-frontequipmentcosts

andhigh

monthlyfees,butevencombined,thesecostsare

farlowerthanthe

subsidiesnecessarytoconnectsuchareas

to

traditionalterrestrialservice.Indeed,forthe

same

priceasfiberdeploymentinsomeruralareas,

thegovernmentcouldgiveahouseholdNGSOequipmentandfundthemonthlyservicefordecades.BEADimplicitlyrecognizesthisfactandNTIAwillrelentin

itspreferencingoffiberfor“extremelyhigh-costareas.”Stateshavetheoptionofsettingthisthresholdthemselves,andtheyshouldbe

solicitous

ofnonfibertechnologieswheneverthealternativesarecheaperthanfiberforacomparableuserexperience.Undernocircumstancesshouldaprogrampaymore

than$15,000perhousehold.

Anylocationabove

thatthresholdwould

certainlybebetterserved

bysatellite.Not

onlywillthisensure

thatBEAD

isableto

achieveitsmission

ofdeployingbroadband

toallAmericans;itwill

alsopreservefundingforadoptionefforts,whicharethenextstep

infullyclosing

thedigitaldivide.LIFELINE

IS

NOW

REDUNDANTTheLifelineprogramis

targetedatlow-incomepeopleandprovidesup

toa$9.25discountonbroadbandserviceformostAmericans.33

Thisbenefitis

lessthan

athirdof

thatavailabletohouseholdsthroughtheACPandappliestoconsumerswith

anincome

ator

below135percentINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE7ofthe

federalpovertyline.Thus,comparedwiththeACP,Lifelineprovidesasmallerbenefittofewerpeople.

Moreover,

eligibilityforLifelineisoneofthewaystoqualifyfortheACP.In

otherwords,there

isnoonecoveredbyLifelinewhocouldnotgettheACP.OncetheACPissustainable,therefore,Lifelinebecomesredundant—and

itsnearly$1billionbudgetcouldbebetterusedto

fundthe

ACPwithoutreducinganyone’sbenefits.EvenifCongresswere

toadjustthesizeoftheACPbenefit(e.g.,

from$30

to$20

permonth)oreligibility

metrics(e.g.,from

200to

150percentof

the

federalpovertylevel),it

could

stillprovidemore

money

to

morepeoplethanLifeline

currentlydoes.

MaintainingbothLifelineandtheACPwouldbe

fiscallyirresponsible;lettingthe

ACPrundrywhileLifelinecontinueswouldbenonsensical.THE

NUMBERS

AND

PRACTICAL

STEPSTogetspecificabouthow

USFreformcansustaintheACP,table1givesaverageexpendituresforLifeline,High-Cost,andReConnectalone.Table

1:

Annual

and

average

spending

on

Lifeline

and

High-Cost

USF

and

USDA’s

ReConnect

programs34ReConnectYearLifeline

DisbursementsHigh-Cost

DisbursementsDisbursements35201820192020202120222023$1,162,115,968$982,002,823$853,660,100$723,769,573$609,934,746$4,835,867,545$5,146,678,647$5,062,558,119$5,128,383,959$4,165,548,744$442,179,093$694,033,081$1,335,705,967$702,970,00036AnnualAverage$866,296,642*$4,867,807,403*$698,501,541***Mean.**Median.Congresshasalreadyappropriated

fundingforBEAD,sonoadditionalfundingisneeded

toeliminate

therural-urban

digitaldivideinallinstanceswhere

fundingcan

reasonablysolvetheproblem.Therefore,elimination

oftheHighCost,Lifeline,

andReConnectprogramswouldreduce

theburdenonAmericanconsumers

byapproximatelythe

amountneededto

fundtheACP.(Seefigure1.)Again,thisplanensuresfundingforruralAmericathrough

thealreadyappropriatedBEADprogramfunds,whichrendertheHigh-Costand

USDAprogramsobsolete.

And,while

itabolishesLifeline,

it

replacesit

withalargerbenefittoallthesame

households.Together,thisgivesus$6.43billion

for

theACP

bychangingthe

structureofthefunding,notbycollectinganymoremoney.Thisisaconservativefigure,sinceCongresscouldnetmoresavingsif

itweretoeliminateotherduplicativeorobsoletebroadband

programs

elsewhere

inthefederalgovernment.INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE8Figure

1:

ITIF

proposal

to

sustain

affordable

connectivity

by

ending

obsolete

broadband

programsOfcourse,structuralreforms

to

theUSFwillface

practicalchallengesgiventhatUSFprogramscurrentlyoperateoutsidethenormalappropriationsprocess.ButCongresscouldpotentially

moveUSACandotherbroadbandfundingprogramsto

underthe

authorityof

the

TreasuryDepartment.Thenitcould

simultaneouslyeliminateanyfutureappropriationsforthe

obsoleteprogramsandappropriatethe

sameamountto

fundthe

ACP.ThismovewouldalsoobviaterecentchallengestoUSAC’sconstitutionalitybymakingclearthatCongresscontrolstaxing

and

spending.37

Whateverone’s

views

ofthelegalityofUSAC’sroleinUSFprograms,it

surelydoes

nothaveaprivatepropertyinterestinUSF

funds,soCongresscould

orderthe

fundsunderFCC/USACcontroltoinsteadbedepositedin

theTreasuryandno

longerbespentonadditionalHigh-Costor

Lifelineprograms.Elimination

of

the

High

Cost,

Lifeline,

and

ReConnect

programs

would

reduce

the

burden

on

Americanconsumers

by

approximately

the

amount

needed

to

fund

the

ACP.Thisplanwould

remove

thetaxburdenon

telecommunicationsconsumers,

whowouldallseecheaperphonebills.Whilenewappropriationswouldbenecessary,theactualfinancialburdenonAmerican

taxpayerswould,atworst,remainunchanged,andcoulddecreasedependingonprogramparticipation.SUBSIDIES

ALONE

WILL

NOT

CLOSE

THE

ENTIRE

DIGITAL

DIVIDETheofflinepopulationhasbecomeonedefined

morebynot

havingan

Internetsubscription

(lackofaccess)thanby

physicaldistancefromthe

technologyitself(lack

ofavailability).Only3.9percentofofflinerespondentstoNTIA’sInternetUseSurveycited

lackofavailablebroadbandnetworksas

thereasonbehindtheirlackofsubscription,andBEADfundingshouldprovidetheinfluxof

funds

necessarytocloseallremaininggaps.38

Contrastthiswith

the

mostcommonreasonsfornonadoption—57.5percentof

households,

forexample,citelackofinterestas

theINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY&INNOVATIONFOUNDATION

|

JULY2023PAGE9primedeterrent,

andanother18.1percentreportthatthepriceof

asubscriptionistoohigh—anditbecomesclearthatnonadoptionisthenextmajorhurdleindigitalinclusion.Accompanying

thischangehasbeenawidespreadandjustifiableshiftin

broadbandpriorities.Manyprogramspromotingbroadband

accessnow

dosothrough

thelensofpushingadoption,whetherthroughaffordabilityprogr