> probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund, That may be, but I have. And if the ISPs are reclassified as Title II, perhaps one of the outcomes would

> probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund, That may be, but I have. And if the ISPs are reclassified as Title II, perhaps one of the outcomes would be the use of the USF to bring broadband to underserved communities. The USF does quite a bit more than 'connect the poor to phone service.' * It helps ensure that consumers in all regions of the nation pay similar rates to those in urban areas. * Discounts that make basic service affordable for low-income consumers (Link-Up America and Lifeline) * Subsidies for rural health care, centering around video conferencing infrastructure and high speed internet access for rural medical providers * 'E-Rate,' which provides subsidies for internet access, telecom services, internal infrastructure and maintenance of the connections to schools and libraries. It pays a percentage based on need. If broadband ISPs are reclassified as Title II, that may expand USF to even data costs from rural to urban areas. I'd say that's a win. > [... VOIP & USF ...] It probably shouldn't: the reason it is right now probably comes down to ISPs not being required to contribute to the fund, and VOIP services come closest to the layman concept of what telecommunications is. They had to make up the gap of contribution caused by people dropping traditional telephony services for VOIP services, and Skype and Google Voice didn't have the FCC lobbying power that TimeWarnerComcastVerizon did. > [Depression-era FUD] USF was started by the act of '34, but was seriously updated in '96 to include things like "access to advanced telecommunication services." Unfortunately, since broadband ISPs aren't Title II, they're probably not included in that.