Supreme Court takes up $8B phone and internet subsidy for rural areas
72 comments
·March 26, 2025paul_f
ceejayoz
> 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.
resoluteteeth
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?
lolinder
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.
https://apnews.com/article/rural-access-broadband-universal-...
readthenotes1
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
mywittyname
And the FCC is empowered by Congress to act on their behalf.
It's the same top-down approach used all over the business world and organizations like the military. The people at the top make high level decisions and empower those below them to handle the fine details.
I don't go to the board of directors of my company to approve every decision I make. They outline strategic goals, hand those to the CEO, who gives plans to the heads of departments, who hand them down to me.
It's so weird to see people latch onto this idea that Congress needs to handle the minutia of governing when we know that top-heavy, leaders-make-every-decision form of governing doesn't work. Imagine a drive thru operator needing board approval to substitute mayonnaise for ketchup on an order because the Article 1 Section 8 of the corporate charter says the board has sole responsibility over the menu, and mayonnaise on a burger is not on the current menu.
drivingmenuts
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
You can't eat pennies
lokar
People always like to complain about unelected (as if any were elected?) bureaucrats.
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.
lolinder
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.
lokar
True
Also, the president only has as much power here as congress delegates. They could delegate less.
ninehunnert
[dead]
josefritzishere
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
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
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
Why would the executive branch feel the need to enforce any of these rulings on Elon or his companies?
plowjockey
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.
light_hue_1
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
[flagged]
mywittyname
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
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.
kamarg
This is short sighted. Where will all those red state farmers go to sell their food if it doesn't go to the large population centers which are mostly located in blue states? It won't be to USAID, China, or any of the other places that it used to go to who are rapidly going from allies to economic adversaries. So now the farmers have no income to buy anything else they need to live or even repay their loans. Given our allies have figured out that they should target their economic pain at red states, it is likely far easier for blue states to find a new food supplier than it is for red states to create entirely new markets for existing American crops.
dragonwriter
>Good luck getting food to your blue states, since 8/10 of the top food producing states in the US are red states.
7/10, not 8/10:
#1 (California) is solid blue (Dem trifecta,2 Dem Senators, Dem US House majority, Dem 2024 Pres vote) #5 (Illinois) is solid blue (Dem trifecta,2 Dem Senators, Dem US House majority, Dem 2024 Pres vote) #6 (Minnesota) is quite blue (Dem state senate, tied state house, dem governor, 2 dem senators, tied US house delegation, Dem 2024 Pres vote)
giantrobot
"I have a brilliant plan, I'll take all this food I have grown and throw it in the trash! I'll show those pesky Blues who is the real boss! I will destroy my livlihood to own those damn libs! Now where is my crop subsidy and stimmy check?"
CursedSilicon
Given the reports during covid of folks literally dying to "own the libs" this isn't a completely impossible (though depressingly unhinged) possiblity
LetMePostMore
The world is more than America, FYI. Also, the red states could sell the food to blue states, but just at a much higher margin than they currently do.
Also also, I'm not the one who invented this ridiculous scenario of every state for themselves, that was OP.
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.