Posts: 4,982
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
Universal Connectivity Fee (Universal Service Fund), Federal:
Because telephones provide a vital link to emergency services, to government services and to surrounding communities, it has been our nation’s policy to promote telephone service to all households since this service began in the 1930s. The USF helps to make phone service affordable and available to all Americans, including consumers with low incomes, those living in areas where the costs of providing telephone service is high, schools and libraries and rural health care providers. Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service Fee” or “Universal Connectivity Fee”.
Posts: 8,474
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
thats called a tax. somebody is paying, if its a line item on a bill or not, we pay for it.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
808 - can we please have a discussion without snarky personal attacks? ("you are just participating in the doubletalk").
The distinction I was trying to make (unsuccessfully, apparently) is that the gov't doesn't mandate this fee on phone bills and that it is not a "tax" paid by all tax payers. The USF is a government mandated "contribution" (yes, that's the word the gov't uses, but I would also call it a "tax")on telcos to fund some worthy objectives (bring phone service where it isn't, subsidize those who can't afford it, etc.). Telco's then pass this cost of business on to their customers via a line item on the bill or by cooking it into enterprise customer contracts because the government "allows" them to, not because it mandates them to. This allows gov't to say with a straight face that they didn't raise taxes on consumers for this valuable social good, and they can cynically add "we're not forcing your telco to pass it on to you, so if you don't like the tax, complain to your telco or switch to one that doesn't charge the USF" (good luck finding one...)
Telco's take heat from their customers when monthly bills increase due to the increases in the mandated USF "contribution" over which they have no control, so (as I stated) they wish the gov't would collect the revenues from this program directly from citizens, rather than making the telcos the tax collectors/bad guys.
Meanwhile the size of the overall fund has increased from $2 billion in 1999 to more than $8 billion today - and the percent of homes with phone service (according to census figures) has only increased from 92.9% in 1980 to 94.6% in 2007.
So Rob, yes, USF is a good idea. But for now, I see an awful lot of money going in, a lot of small rural telco's paying huge dividends to their shareholders, a bunch of cellular companies getting subsidized to provide service that competes with other USF-subsidized services, and yet we still don't have widespread availability of broadband just a few miles outside Hawaii's second largest city.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Yes, let's dump it since Hawaii receives a very large portion of funding through the USF. Why should those on the mainland subsidize landline/wireless communications and internet on Hawaii? I say let the carriers (wired, wireless, internet) charge what it really cost and if you can't afford it, go without phone service or stop eating so you can surf the web. If you have to hock the car to pay for simple phone service, do it. But stop saddling those of us on the mainland with your need for welfare.
Now, if you didn't know your communications service was subsidized and would increase without the USF, you need to start understanding that poor is only one part with underserved the other.
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
Bob, hope you didn't think I was against USF - it's a great program that I highly support. The problem is that the money isn't being collected or distributed efficiently or effectively, so we're not getting enough bang for our $8 billion bucks each year.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
No we're not getting the bang we should.
I think part of the problem is people don't really know how the fund is used. On average, Puna residents probably receive $10 - $15 a month subsidy on their landline service (more if located further away with few subscribers). That's never seen or discussed because it's small compared to the over $14,000 per drop on Maui. So people complain abut the "subsidy" when they see that figure and call for the fund to be abolished as some handout to the poor and tax on everyone else. Yet, their phone bill would be $12 or so more per month without it. They don't see what they are getting so they don't think they are the recipient of funds as well.
I see no reason not to end subsidy for anything but basic residential landlines and school/library. All the other stuff really is just welfare to telecoms, wireless companies and internet providers. Nobody said you have the right to expect high speed internet service or cell phones as part of “basic telephone” service.
Posts: 8,474
Threads: 1,033
Joined: May 2003
Pardon me for jumping back in here late....
What is being discussed is a "universal service" situation as I understand it and the effect on rural Hawaii is basically the same as the effect on rural Arkansas.
Is there any relation here to the ongoing charge on everyone's phone bill for "digital" phone service? That charge, which still exists, was instituted to subsidize the universal technology upgrade from analog to digital - which was basically completed thirty years ago.
The whole subject seems similar to government subsidized efforts to expand electricity into rural areas after WWII (and is still underway in rural Hawaii).
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Posts: 4,982
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
Some telcos are still charging a touch tone fee even though no one has dial phones anymore but I haven't heard of a digital fee.
I have a summer home in Ohio and I am thankful for the USF and REA.Without them I would never have had a phone line or electric power.This area of Ohio is more remote than Puna and the county is much poorer that Hawaii county.
Posts: 447
Threads: 36
Joined: Sep 2009
Bob do you live on the mainland??
and this is the most realistic thing you have ever said!
I AGREE!
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Orts
Yes, let's dump it since Hawaii receives a very large portion of funding through the USF. Why should those on the mainland subsidize landline/wireless communications and internet on Hawaii? I say let the carriers (wired, wireless, internet) charge what it really cost and if you can't afford it, go without phone service or stop eating so you can surf the web. If you have to hock the car to pay for simple phone service, do it. But stop saddling those of us on the mainland with your need for welfare.
Now, if you didn't know your communications service was subsidized and would increase without the USF, you need to start understanding that poor is only one part with underserved the other.
|
