Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez defended the USF program during a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday before the U.S. Supreme Court argument in FCC v. Consumers’ Research (see 2503260061).
Trent McCotter, the lawyer for Consumers’ Research, faced tough questions during lengthy oral arguments Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court on the group’s challenge of the USF contribution factor and the USF in general. Sarah Harris, acting U.S. solicitor general, vigorously defended the USF on behalf of the government. Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy, a high-profile conservative appellate lawyer, represented industry defenders of the USF.
On the eve of a key U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the USF's future, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said questions remain about the program's survival. How USF is paid for has to change, Carr told a Free State Foundation conference Tuesday. He also said he supports President Donald Trump's dismissal of Democratic commissioners at the FTC.
Opponents of T-Mobile’s proposed buy of wireless assets from UScellular met with FCC staff to explain their concerns. The groups at the meeting were the Rural Wireless Association, EchoStar, Communications Workers of America, Public Knowledge, New America’s Open Technology Institute, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. They met with staff from the Wireless Bureau and the offices of Economics and Analytics and General Counsel, according to a filing posted Friday in docket 24-286.
Gigabit Fiber, a Dallas-based ISP, appeared to call on the FCC to scrap the USF in response to the commission’s “Delete Delete Delete” notice (see 2503140049). “The current USF system is outdated, economically burdensome, and unconstitutional,” the company said in a filing posted Wednesday in docket 25-133. “It has a storied history of waste, fraud and abuse and is a tax and spend fix to a problem that no longer exists. Some of this legal framework dates to the era of the Pony Express, telegraph lines and subsidized railroads.” Gigabit Fiber said it imposes USF fees on some of its services and then doesn’t know what happens to the money. “We assume the money finds its way to the US Treasury and then in turn some is used to fund dubious programs with the balance lost to waste, fraud and abuse.”
Lawyers for the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society were cautiously optimistic Wednesday that their side would prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the FCC and the USF contribution factor in FCC v. Consumers’ Research. But they also expect a divided decision. SCOTUS is to consider the case March 26.
The FCC Wireline Bureau granted in part Broadband VI’s (BBVI) petition for waiver of its 40% deployment milestone deadline under the Connect USVI Fund, but only until June 30. The original deadline was Dec. 31, 2024. The company sought a waiver through the end of this year. “We find that the public interest is served by granting an additional brief waiver to allow BBVI to come into compliance as quickly as possible with commitments it made as a recipient” of USF support “for the benefit of all residents in the U.S. Virgin Islands,” said an order in Monday’s Daily Digest.
Facing a withholding of some USF high-cost support due to an untimely certification, RiverStreet Communications of North Carolina is asking the FCC Wireline Bureau for a waiver of agency rules concerning submitting annual reporting information. In a docket 10-90 request posted Friday, RiverStreet said that initially it inadvertently failed to certify its Q3 2023 data, though that filing was certified weeks later. It said the Universal Service Administrative Co. notified it last month that a portion of RiverStreet's high-cost support payment would be withheld. RiverStreet said the lost money will delay its planned broadband deployment to the unserved and underserved in rural North Carolina. The shutdown of the performance measures module for much of last fall prevented it from certifying when it was supposed to, it said, subjecting it to notably higher penalties.
The government defended the FCC in a reply brief in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, the USF case before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Consumers' Research (CR) creates a “straw man” to attack. Public interest groups, led by the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, also defended the legality of how the USF contribution factor is calculated. SCOTUS is set to hear oral argument March 26.
The FCC Office of Managing Director announced Thursday a proposed Q2 USF contribution factor of 36.6%, as calculated by the Universal Service Administrative Co. That’s up from 36.3% the previous quarter and the highest quarterly contribution factor in the program's history. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear FCC v. Consumers’ Research March 26, a case about the contribution factor's legality.