SCOTUS to decide future of fund seen as lifeline for rural broadband
Click play to listen to this article.
Later this month, on March 26, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a federal fund that aids rural broadband service.
South Dakota advocates say a negative outcome could be devastating for customers.
A conservative organization brought the case, hoping to end a Federal Communications Commission fee that flows into what's known as the Universal Service Fund.
© iStock - arcoss
It provides $8 billion a year for telecommunications programs geared toward underserved populations. That includes high-speed internet service in rural areas.
Kara Semmler, general counsel and executive director of the South Dakota Telecommunications Association, said she worries about the impact if the challenge is successful.
"Children will be missing out on educational opportunities," said Semmler, "businesses will lose their competitiveness."
Industry groups say rates for customers, benefiting from the fund, will double if it's struck down.
The plaintiffs contend the fee mechanism used to prop up the fund is more like a tax, meaning Congress should have the oversight.
Semmler said shifting that power would result in funding uncertainty for an industry that relies on long-term planning.
Cellphone service providers and other telecom companies pay the fee that's at the center of the legal argument. Those costs are passed along to consumers across the country through their monthly bills.
Semmler said it's a small price to pay to maintain critical broadband infrastructure in rural pockets.
"It's that ongoing operation, maintenance, and affordability of the product," said Semmler. "It does no good to have infrastructure in the ground if it becomes unaffordable for South Dakota consumers to use."
Semmler said they've had productive conversations with South Dakota's Congressional delegation about "Plan B" strategies.
But she acknowledged the budget-cutting tone in Washington D.C. right now, while adding it would be hard for state government to fill any sudden funding gaps.
