The House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology held a hearing recently on the Telecom Act of 1996 – 30 Years Later. This hearing came on the heels of a series of events in Washington, D.C., over the past couple of months – including one hosted by NTCA – that offered up a mix of celebrating, ruminating and handwringing (sometimes all at once) over the continuing applicability of this landmark law.
It makes sense, of course, that with issues as complex as those tackled by the Telecom Act, and given the passage of time, there’d be mixed views of the law at this point. It’s essential, however, to take a data-driven, issue-by-issue, provision-by-provision look at the Act to take real stock of what’s working and what isn’t, rather than falling back upon knee-jerk takes to the effect of “well, this thing just feels outdated” or “this is so important that we can’t change it at all.” And fortunately, the hearing made the effort to go a level deeper, with a good amount of detailed discussion about everything from Section 230 and network modernization to specific aspects of universal service policies and programs.
In advance of the hearing, NTCA submitted a letter to the Subcommittee highlighting the ongoing importance of sound universal service policies – backed by data points underscoring the difference that Universal Service Fund (USF) programs still make today in the availability and affordability of advanced services in rural America. This isn’t to say that USF programs shouldn’t evolve. In fact, they’ve already evolved substantially over the past 30 years, going from voice-focused programs to initiatives that underpin ongoing access to critical advanced connectivity for millions of rural Americans.
We’re eager for debates to come about how we keep fulfilling the enduring mission of universal service in rural America. But as the hearing showed, it’s important to go a level deeper than just “this law is old” or “this principle is essential.” It’s critical to understand the comprehensive mission of universal service and to take a close look at what has worked and what hasn’t. We certainly didn’t agree with everything talked about in the hearing. Some of the ideas floated still just don’t pencil out once you take a closer look at the data and the details. But conversations like this are important, and we were excited to see so much support voiced for the essential nature of universal service. And, importantly, in the wake of the hearing, we’re excited for the bipartisan bicameral USF working group to continue its deeper dive in developing proposed updates to the universal service programs. The details matter, and we’re glad ultimately that the working group is undertaking the hard work to try to get this right.