The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be. The FCC keeps raising the tax rate. 10% of your mobile phone bill now goes to this fund that seems was decided by bureaucrats at the FCC and not by Congress. If the court strikes it down, then Congress will have to step in, which seems appropriate.
> The issue is not if the fund is needed or not, it is that congress never specified how much the Universal Service Fund tax would be.
Congress could, if they didn't like the regulators' chosen amount, set a new fixed amount with a couple lines of legislation and a vote. Done in a day.
If Congress chose not to specify it and therefore delegate the decision, shouldn't it be up to them to pass a new law to specify it if needed if they think the executive branch has raised it too much?
Why is this a situation where the supreme court should step in?
The legal question is identified in the original reporting on the lower court's ruling:
> Oldham said the USF funding method unconstitutionally delegates congressional taxing authority to the FCC and a private entity tapped by the agency, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to determine how much to charge telecommunications companies. Oldham wrote that “the combination of Congress’s broad delegation to FCC and FCC’s subdelegation to private entities certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.”
This certainly seems to me like an important question for the Court to weigh in on. The power to tax is clearly Congress's, but it's not clear that we should want Congress to have the power to delegate that power to anyone they choose.
It's probably not, but the current administration doesn't want to pay any of the bills for the people producing their food. A penny spent on the less fortunate is one that doesn't go into their pockets.
My complaint with presidential nominees having extensive power is that it moves too much policy to hinge on a single, nationwide election. As we've seen, that can lead to extreme instability versus congressional legislation.
If the USF is struck down two things will happen
1. Elon will get feweer subsidies. Starlink is enriched heavily by USF
2. Rural areas will be continue to have terrible options for terrestrial services.
3. There may be a resurgence of municipal-owned internet but the ISPs seem to have sued that out of existence to date.
Maybe congress will just rewrite a new USF. I wonder what satellite internet company would magically be the only one who can meet the new USF requirements?
Elon already receives subsidies from USF. All of Elon's riches come from government funds. If Elon has a company or project, you should just assume it is funded by government contracts, grants, and subsidies because it likely is in some capacity.
I don't know where the USF monies go but it certainly isn't here.
I suspect the likes of AT&T and Google get the lion's share and then through sleight of hand it somehow funds build outs of fiber in large metro areas. If it weren't for the local independent telcos scratching and clawing for a few crumbs, there wouldn't be any FTH in rural areas.
A few years back .gov allocated considerable funds for expanding, presumably, FTH in "rural" areas. The state I live in did the same. So far in the AT&T monopoly, not an inch of fiber has been plowed that I can see. Most of the funds have probably been laundered back to the politicians and the status quo remains.
A new WISP has been putting up sites over the past several months in parts of the AT&T service area with no other terrestrial service available. This, even in the age of Star Link. I doubt they would be doing so unless they had a pretty good idea that no FTH will be available for five to ten years or at least long enough to amortize their investment.
Like most taxes levied on We The People, the USF is a PR stunt intended to buy votes.
They should kill it. It makes no sense that the EPA can't do it's basic job but this shakedown exists.
Conservatives haven't had to live with the consequences of their decisions. They still get their farming subsidies. Their phone and Internet subsidized. Flood insurance. Countless other programs overwhelmingly help red states.
We used to have an agreement in this country. That everyone was going to be better off. Now the conservative story is all about hurting the right people.
So let's do it. Every state for themselves. Blue states can help other blue states if they want to. Same with red states. Cut off the basic function of the federal government.
I'm tired of my tax dollars helping people who don't want what's best for me and my family while I go out there and advocate for them.
Readit News
Congress could, if they didn't like the regulators' chosen amount, set a new fixed amount with a couple lines of legislation and a vote. Done in a day.
Why is this a situation where the supreme court should step in?
> Oldham said the USF funding method unconstitutionally delegates congressional taxing authority to the FCC and a private entity tapped by the agency, the Universal Service Administrative Company, to determine how much to charge telecommunications companies. Oldham wrote that “the combination of Congress’s broad delegation to FCC and FCC’s subdelegation to private entities certainly amounts to a constitutional violation.”
This certainly seems to me like an important question for the Court to weigh in on. The power to tax is clearly Congress's, but it's not clear that we should want Congress to have the power to delegate that power to anyone they choose.
https://apnews.com/article/rural-access-broadband-universal-...
IANAL, so the clarity of Article 1 section 8 may be not what the words seem to say
The president picks the head of the FCC.
Any president could have adjusted the fee. This is all fully under the control of elected officials.
Dead Comment
I suspect the likes of AT&T and Google get the lion's share and then through sleight of hand it somehow funds build outs of fiber in large metro areas. If it weren't for the local independent telcos scratching and clawing for a few crumbs, there wouldn't be any FTH in rural areas.
A few years back .gov allocated considerable funds for expanding, presumably, FTH in "rural" areas. The state I live in did the same. So far in the AT&T monopoly, not an inch of fiber has been plowed that I can see. Most of the funds have probably been laundered back to the politicians and the status quo remains.
A new WISP has been putting up sites over the past several months in parts of the AT&T service area with no other terrestrial service available. This, even in the age of Star Link. I doubt they would be doing so unless they had a pretty good idea that no FTH will be available for five to ten years or at least long enough to amortize their investment.
Like most taxes levied on We The People, the USF is a PR stunt intended to buy votes.
Conservatives haven't had to live with the consequences of their decisions. They still get their farming subsidies. Their phone and Internet subsidized. Flood insurance. Countless other programs overwhelmingly help red states.
We used to have an agreement in this country. That everyone was going to be better off. Now the conservative story is all about hurting the right people.
So let's do it. Every state for themselves. Blue states can help other blue states if they want to. Same with red states. Cut off the basic function of the federal government.
I'm tired of my tax dollars helping people who don't want what's best for me and my family while I go out there and advocate for them.
Dead Comment