Statement of Commissioner O'Rielly on Universal Service Contribution Methodology

In my years working on communications policy, I have been tremendously focused on improving the effectiveness of our Universal Service Fund programs to bring broadband Internet to those without access. Part and parcel of that mission is to ensure the USF’s sustainability for years to come, and to protect the hard-earned investments of consumers who pay for our subsidy programs. I have advocated on behalf of ratepayers to address a perennial problem of public choice: while there’s never any shortage of special interest groups seeking additional spending, those who actually foot the bill are much less likely to spend time and resources to defend their own interests. Quite reasonably and appropriately, they’re focused instead on their everyday, busy lives. That is why I called on the FCC to begin this critical rulemaking. The FCC has time and again increased spending in each of the discrete sub-programs, often justifiably so. However, it has done so without the constraints of a topline budget, and, in turn, without considering the effect of spending decisions for the whole USF enterprise and how to fairly and efficiently allocate scarce funds among the four programs. That is not a responsible way to run an $11 billion-plus fund, and not the way the vast majority of federal government programs—or American businesses and families, for that matter—operate. 

It seems necessary to set the record straight on several misconceptions that were peddled in the wake of the draft’s circulation:

1. FACT: This NPRM initiates a dialogue and does NOT constitute a final order.
2. FACT: This NPRM’s proposed budget would NOT cut funding to Universal Service.
3. FACT: This NPRM is NOT a backdoor way to establish a budget on Lifeline.