The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) has survived a Supreme Court challenge by a right wing activist nonprofit, but the program – which for decades has helped extend broadband to underserved rural homes and schools – still faces a precarious immediate future.

It is a peculiar political story, given that the rural regions that overwhelmingly vote for Republicans are now seeing Republicans try to dismantle a program that has been crucial for rural investment and development.

The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Historically a program with broad, bipartisan support, the USF leverages around $8 billion annually to expand broadband access to rural communities, libraries, and schools. The program is primarily paid for by consumers via a small levy on traditional phone lines.

In 2023, a right wing activist nonprofit named “Consumer’s Research” sued the government over the USF, claiming that the FCC lacked the constitutional authority to levy a fee on consumers’ bills. The lawsuit claimed that the USF depended on what amounted to an “unconstitutional tax” on consumers to fund operations.

California lawmakers’ efforts to pass a new law mandating affordable broadband access is at risk of being destroyed by industry lobbying. California insiders say the changes are so dramatic they may wind up making broadband affordability in the state worse – undermining years of digital equity activism and discarding a rare opportunity to bridge the digital divide.

The California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner last January, would require that broadband providers in the state provide broadband at no more than $15 per month for low-income households participating in a qualified public assistance program.

The original legislation mandated that state residents should be able to receive $15 for all ISPs for broadband at speeds of 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 20 Mbps upstream. The proposal mirrored similar efforts by New York State which opened the door to other state efforts after the Supreme Court recently refused to hear a telecom industry challenge.

Image

“I want to get something fair and reasonable that helps those who need it most,” Boerner said in a press release. “AB 353 will fill the gap and ensure our children can turn in their homework, families can get access to telehealth, and apply for jobs online.”

On June 4 a vote moved the legislation through the state Assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

California lawmakers’ efforts to pass a new law mandating affordable broadband access is at risk of being destroyed by industry lobbying. California insiders say the changes are so dramatic they may wind up making broadband affordability in the state worse – undermining years of digital equity activism and discarding a rare opportunity to bridge the digital divide.

The California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner last January, would require that broadband providers in the state provide broadband at no more than $15 per month for low-income households participating in a qualified public assistance program.

The original legislation mandated that state residents should be able to receive $15 for all ISPs for broadband at speeds of 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 20 Mbps upstream. The proposal mirrored similar efforts by New York State which opened the door to other state efforts after the Supreme Court recently refused to hear a telecom industry challenge.

Image

“I want to get something fair and reasonable that helps those who need it most,” Boerner said in a press release. “AB 353 will fill the gap and ensure our children can turn in their homework, families can get access to telehealth, and apply for jobs online.”

On June 4 a vote moved the legislation through the state Assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

California lawmakers’ efforts to pass a new law mandating affordable broadband access is at risk of being destroyed by industry lobbying. California insiders say the changes are so dramatic they may wind up making broadband affordability in the state worse – undermining years of digital equity activism and discarding a rare opportunity to bridge the digital divide.

The California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner last January, would require that broadband providers in the state provide broadband at no more than $15 per month for low-income households participating in a qualified public assistance program.

The original legislation mandated that state residents should be able to receive $15 for all ISPs for broadband at speeds of 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 20 Mbps upstream. The proposal mirrored similar efforts by New York State which opened the door to other state efforts after the Supreme Court recently refused to hear a telecom industry challenge.

Image

“I want to get something fair and reasonable that helps those who need it most,” Boerner said in a press release. “AB 353 will fill the gap and ensure our children can turn in their homework, families can get access to telehealth, and apply for jobs online.”

On June 4 a vote moved the legislation through the state Assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

California lawmakers’ efforts to pass a new law mandating affordable broadband access is at risk of being destroyed by industry lobbying. California insiders say the changes are so dramatic they may wind up making broadband affordability in the state worse – undermining years of digital equity activism and discarding a rare opportunity to bridge the digital divide.

The California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner last January, would require that broadband providers in the state provide broadband at no more than $15 per month for low-income households participating in a qualified public assistance program.

The original legislation mandated that state residents should be able to receive $15 for all ISPs for broadband at speeds of 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 20 Mbps upstream. The proposal mirrored similar efforts by New York State which opened the door to other state efforts after the Supreme Court recently refused to hear a telecom industry challenge.

Image

“I want to get something fair and reasonable that helps those who need it most,” Boerner said in a press release. “AB 353 will fill the gap and ensure our children can turn in their homework, families can get access to telehealth, and apply for jobs online.”

On June 4 a vote moved the legislation through the state Assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.

California lawmakers’ efforts to pass a new law mandating affordable broadband access is at risk of being destroyed by industry lobbying. California insiders say the changes are so dramatic they may wind up making broadband affordability in the state worse – undermining years of digital equity activism and discarding a rare opportunity to bridge the digital divide.

The California Affordable Home Internet Act (AB 353), introduced by Assemblymember Tasha Boerner last January, would require that broadband providers in the state provide broadband at no more than $15 per month for low-income households participating in a qualified public assistance program.

The original legislation mandated that state residents should be able to receive $15 for all ISPs for broadband at speeds of 100 megabit per second (Mbps) downstream, 20 Mbps upstream. The proposal mirrored similar efforts by New York State which opened the door to other state efforts after the Supreme Court recently refused to hear a telecom industry challenge.

Image

“I want to get something fair and reasonable that helps those who need it most,” Boerner said in a press release. “AB 353 will fill the gap and ensure our children can turn in their homework, families can get access to telehealth, and apply for jobs online.”

On June 4 a vote moved the legislation through the state Assembly and on to the state senate by a 52-17 margin.