致普遍服务基金未来工作组的信（英）

Dear Senator Fischer, Senator Luján, and members of the USF Working Group, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) appreciates the opportunity to comment onthe future of the Universal Service Fund (USF). Two key facts should guide the Working Group: 1.Universal broadband deployment is now a reality. 2.The digital divide remains because of adoption and affordability barriers. The combination of these facts calls for Congress to refocus the Universal Service Fund to eliminateunnecessary spending and put redirected funds to where they most benefit consumers. To that end, ITIF hasdeveloped the attached proposal to rethink the High-Cost Fund and Lifeline and create a more stable and fairfunding mechanism. While the report contains detailed reasons for each component of the plan, here are thebasic parameters: Sunset the High-Cost fund to zero by 2031.Modernize Lifeline to become a flexible, consumer-focused, $30 per month broadband voucher. This plan would shrink USF spending by approximately $2 billion per year. While distribution reform is the best way to shrink the contribution factor, Congress should also reform USFfunding to come from general appropriations, or some other method of encompassing the entire U.S. taxbase. Congress should not continue to rely on, or impose new, sector-specific contributions of any kind.These only perpetuate the instability and unfairness of the current system and would require higher tax ratesthan the broader base of all taxpayers. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to working with you on this important issue. Sincerely, Joe KaneDirector of Broadband and Spectrum Policy Ellis SchererPolicy Analyst Attachment:“How the Universal Service Fund Can Better Serve Consumers While Spending Less”(Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, September 2025). How the Universal Service Fund CanBetter Serve Consumers WhileSpending Less ELLIS SCHERER AND JOE KANE|SEPTEMBER 2025 Congress should reform and refocus the Universal Service Fund. It spends too much money,prioritizes the wrong problems, and funds it all with a high, sector-specific tax rate. Congressshould reduce the overall size of the program and fund it with general revenue. KEY TAKEAWAYS Private and federal investment have closed the broadband deployment gap. As such, thegovernment should stop spending on obsolete, duplicative deployment programs. Congress and the FCC should eliminate the High-Cost fund once current fundingobligations are complete. The federal government should stop subsidizing companies’operating expenses. Instead, a narrower, Lifeline program should be the central USF program, providing a $30per month voucher to low-income households for the broadband service of their choice. Sector-specific USF fees are an ineffective contribution model. Consumers always bearmost of the burden of taxes even when they are technically levied on companies. Simply taxing more industries will recreate the current program’s flaws while introducingeven more market distortions and unfairness. With lower expenditures it will be easier to support USF. However, even then, Congressshould fund USF as much as possible through appropriations or some other method tospread the burden to all taxpayers. itif.org CONTENTS Key Takeaways................................................................................................................... 1Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3Distribution Reform ............................................................................................................ 3Broadband Deployment Success Calls for New Priorities ..................................................... 3Federal Deployment Subsidies Are Numerous, Disjointed, and Obsolete ............................... 3Eliminate the High-Cost Program ...................................................................................... 41. Programs to Sunset After Completion......................................................................... 42. Obsolete Cap-Ex Subsidies ....................................................................................... 53. Poor-Policy Op-Ex Subsidies ..................................................................................... 5The 5G Fund............................................................................................................... 7A New and Improved Distribution Model: Modernized Lifeline Should Be the Flagship ........... 8Contribution Reform ........................................................................................................... 9Sector-Specific Fees Are No Free Lunch; Consumers Will Pay for USF.................................. 9A Better Way: “All Taxpayers” Is the Broadest Possible Base............................................. 10UnderFCC v. Consumers’ Research, Congress Can Enable the