Arguments that low earth orbit broadband can't meet BEAD capacity requirements and that LEO lacks scalability are incorrect, Joe Kane, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation director-broadband and spectrum policy, wrote this week on the group's website. Kane said LEO service can exceed 100 Mbps downloads, which is more than adequate for consumer use. While LEO upload speeds fall short of 20 Mbps in some areas, wireline upload speeds in those same areas "are precisely zero; the alternative fiber networks don’t exist," he said. Kane said LEO networks are scalable as they launch new satellites and account for the cost to replace them over time. Any BEAD fund awards come with enforceable obligations to meet performance standards, he said. Criticisms that LEO broadband is more expensive wrongly compare urban wireline rates to rural Starlink rates, as consumer prices will always be lower in more densely populated areas, according to Kane. He said absent USF funding, rural wireline broadband would be more expensive than SpaceX's Starlink service.
The FCC avoided a potentially disastrous result when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the USF contribution factor in its Consumers’ Research decision last month (see 2507020049), HWG’s Chris Wright said during a practitioners panel that was part of an FCBA CLE Tuesday (see 2507150081). “If the case had gone the other way” it would have “called into question almost everything in the Communications Act,” said Wright, a former FCC general counsel.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month upholding the USF in the Consumers’ Research case was a win for the FCC (see 2507020049), but the fight isn’t over, Jacob Lewis, FCC associate general counsel, said during an FCBA CLE on Tuesday. Lewis warned that Consumers’ Research has already renewed its challenge in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, making a different argument for overturning parts of the fund.
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month upholding the USF (see 2506270054) was a win for consumers, questions about the future of the fund won’t go away, Pillsbury lawyers wrote Thursday. Carriers that pay into the USF “get to decide whether to pass those costs through to their customers or absorb [them], and due to the high cost, most choose to pass some if not most of that fee on to customers in the form of a line-item USF charge on their phone bill,” the lawyers blogged. Now that the fund has survived judicial challenges, “advocates will look to Congress and the FCC to expand the contribution base to ensure sustainable funding in the face of eroding revenues from traditional telecommunications sources and the rapid growth of broadband and other connectivity services.”
The FCC, Congress and others have been considering alternative funding mechanisms for USF, and now that the program's legality has been affirmed, they can move forward, Parks Associates analyst Kristen Hanich wrote Tuesday. The U.S. Supreme Court last month upheld the constitutionality of USF's contribution scheme (see 2506270054). With only 25% of U.S. internet households receiving phone service, USF "must evolve in order to meet the needs of Americans for the next 30 years," she said.
Lawyers for the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition and the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society said Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month upholding the USF was a clean win for the program and the FCC (see 2507020049). By rejecting the challenge -- brought by Consumers’ Research, a right-wing group -- SCOTUS lifted a cloud that has loomed over the USF for years, the lawyers said during an SHLB webinar.
Leaders of the House and Senate Commerce committees who are spearheading the bipartisan congressional working group on a USF legislative revamp, which relaunched in June (see 2506120091), told us they plan to begin meeting again this month. But they said they feel less pressure to quickly reach an agreement on legislative recommendations since the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Consumers’ Research v. FCC, which found that USF’s funding mechanism is constitutional (see 2506270054). Sens. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., and John Thune, R-S.D., formed the working group in 2023 as Communications Subcommittee chairman and ranking member, respectively (see 2305110066).
Former FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly said Wednesday that while he has long been a critic of the USF, he was relieved that the U.S. Supreme Court last week didn’t overturn the program (see 2506270054). Cutting off support that USF recipients need would be “a terrible outcome,” O’Rielly said during a Broadband Breakfast webinar.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s USF contribution scheme in a 6-3 opinion Friday in Consumers’ Research v. FCC, but dissenting and concurring opinions from several conservative justices appeared to invite future challenges, attorneys told us.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday in Consumers’ Research v. FCC that the USF's contribution scheme doesn’t violate the non-delegation doctrine. The decision overturned an en banc ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a dissent, which was joined by Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.