4 ms·

Supreme Court takes up $8B phone and internet subsidy for rural areas

36 points by voxadam 2y ago

josefritzishere 2y ago
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.
- wil421 2y ago
  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?
  - 9283409232 2y ago
    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.
- lovich 2y ago
  Why would the executive branch feel the need to enforce any of these rulings on Elon or his companies?
paul_f 2y ago
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.
- resoluteteeth 2y ago
  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?
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    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.
    - downrightmike 2y ago
      You can't eat pennies
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        these pennies do power the inernet and phones of your libraries though. And compared to the overall budget, calling these costs pennies is a magnitude too large.
        downrightmike 2y ago
        I was making a point that they are only trying to steal and hoard money, which when they are the only ones with money, money will have no value and you can't eat them.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    It could be that the power to lay taxes is granted solely to Congress in the Constitution. IANAL, so the clarity of Article 1 section 8 may be not what the words seem to say
    - 2y ago
light_hue_1 2y ago
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.
- LetMePostMore 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mywittyname 2y ago
    This is a two-way street. Without money flowing in from other states, then who's going to buy that Kansas wheat? Increased competition for staple crops internationally is part of the reason why the USA began having a trade deficit for agriculture products in 2020, which has ballooned since. Plus, without those subsidies the whole food economy would shift. Maybe those blue states import more from Mexico/Canada/Asia/Europe. Maybe they produce even more crops locally. Most states used to grow enough food locally to sustain their populations. There's nothing stopping them from achieving self-sufficiency again. Especially with modern farming techniques.
    - LetMePostMore 2y ago
      I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. I suppose the people who would buy Kansas wheat would be anyone who wants wheat. The US currently considers food security a vital part of national security. The blue states in this scenario can outsource their food production if they want, and hope there's never any conflict which stops those shipments.
plowjockey 2y ago
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.

36 points by voxadam 2y ago

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.

wil421 2y ago
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?
- 9283409232 2y ago
  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.
lovich 2y ago
Why would the executive branch feel the need to enforce any of these rulings on Elon or his companies?

paul_f 2y ago

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.

resoluteteeth 2y ago
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?
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  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.
  - downrightmike 2y ago
    You can't eat pennies
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      these pennies do power the inernet and phones of your libraries though. And compared to the overall budget, calling these costs pennies is a magnitude too large.
      - downrightmike 2y ago
        I was making a point that they are only trying to steal and hoard money, which when they are the only ones with money, money will have no value and you can't eat them.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  It could be that the power to lay taxes is granted solely to Congress in the Constitution. IANAL, so the clarity of Article 1 section 8 may be not what the words seem to say
  - 2y ago

light_hue_1 2y ago

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.

LetMePostMore 2y ago
[flagged]
- mywittyname 2y ago
  This is a two-way street. Without money flowing in from other states, then who's going to buy that Kansas wheat? Increased competition for staple crops internationally is part of the reason why the USA began having a trade deficit for agriculture products in 2020, which has ballooned since. Plus, without those subsidies the whole food economy would shift. Maybe those blue states import more from Mexico/Canada/Asia/Europe. Maybe they produce even more crops locally. Most states used to grow enough food locally to sustain their populations. There's nothing stopping them from achieving self-sufficiency again. Especially with modern farming techniques.
  - LetMePostMore 2y ago
    I'd rather have wheat and no money, than money and no wheat. I suppose the people who would buy Kansas wheat would be anyone who wants wheat. The US currently considers food security a vital part of national security. The blue states in this scenario can outsource their food production if they want, and hope there's never any conflict which stops those shipments.

plowjockey 2y ago

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.