Washington Matters
Rural Broadband Access
To Grow, Slowly But Surely
But universal broadband will mean a big fight over who pays the cost.
By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
December 7, 2009
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
Rural high-speed Internet service is years away and ultimately will require a combination of new phone taxes and billions of dollars more in federal support. Neither will happen easily or quickly, but it’s the most likely policy route Washington will take as broadband stretches into rural and underserved areas in the next decade.
The first step will be taken by the Federal Communications Commission, which is likely to formally propose broadband taxes in February, arguing that the current Universal Service Fee paid by telephone companies and consumers to provide phone service to rural areas should be expanded and funded at a higher rate to cover construction, development and maintenance of rural broadband services.
A broadband tax proposal will spark a fierce battle. Businesses and consumer groups will fight the prospect of higher phone taxes, and deficit hawks will oppose efforts to add tens of billions to the deficit to finance rural broadband connectivity. In the end, though, some combination of the two is likely in advance of actual deployment of rural broadband, a project that will take a decade.
The FCC, which strongly supports rural broadband expansion won’t specify how much of a tax should be imposed, only that a tax should be the primary vehicle to finance rural broadband. Congress would set a tax rate at a later date after a year or more of hearings and comment at the FCC and in Congress.
The goal of ubiquitous high-speed broadband has bipartisan appeal in Washington and remains an important domestic initiative of the Obama administration. Both parties strongly support closing the digital divide and view it as an economic, educational and social policy plus. The extension of broadband into rural areas, such as to parts of the northern Plains, western mountain states and large swaths of southern Gulf states would help encourage business development and online commerce.
But like many large and ambitious national projects, financing is the challenge. Cost estimates for universal broadband connecting nearly all parts of the country vary widely. Leading telecom industry experts put it in the $200 billion to $300 billion range to cover the cost of all the cable, connections, equipment and servicing. The large telecom companies won’t foot the bill on their own, and a variety of tax incentives to spur them or other investors to take on the challenge are not enough. At the same time, a huge federal injection of money to finance nationwide broadband is simply untenable politically and fiscally at present.
For comparison, the economic stimulus bill earlier this year included $7.2 billion to jump-start rural broadband efforts, but telecom giants like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T wouldn’t touch the funds, not only because they were not enough but also because they would come with a host of regulations.
There is bipartisan draft legislation by Reps. Rick Boucher, D-VA, and Lee Terry, R-NE, to expand the scope of the Universal Service Fund to cover rural broadband development, but the legislation will serve largely as a talking point for now while the industry awaits the FCC proposal early next year.
Odds are that some type of broadband tax will be enacted in two or three years along with a commitment by the president and Congress of more federal support down the road. But there’ll be no injection of $100 billion or more in federal money to finance the bulk of the project. Support for such a large federal injection of funding simply can’t be envisioned for now, not with the high deficit, the health care bill, a possible energy bill, rising entitlement costs and the overseas military commitments that are ongoing.
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy


Reader Comments (10)
Posted by: JD at 12/07/2009 06:52:17 PM
These proposals are an enormous waste. There are reasons that providers won't extend service areas to rural areas, even with government incentives. It costs way too much. They need to make tons of lines to nowhere, all to serve a half-dozen farms. Even if the construction was free, the maintenance would be way more than the revenue. And the worst part is, it's all pointless. We already have satellite services for providing the internet. Sure, they're not as good as cable internet in a city, but so are a lot of other services available in rural areas. And the technology is getting better all the time. How foolish of our government - to spend a bunch of our money on wires just as wires are becoming obsolete!
Posted by: merchant solutions llc at 12/08/2009 12:44:32 AM
they're not as good as cable internet in a city, but so are a lot of other services available in rural areas
Posted by: User Guy at 12/08/2009 02:26:13 AM
I'm an Ubuntu Linux user in rural Kentucky. I can't get cable TV, cable internet access, or dsl, which leaves me with satellite internet, dialup, and mobile broadband to choose from. The phone lines here are really noisy so I can't even get as fast of dialup as people in the city. Satellite service is rediculously expensive and I can't download Ubuntu Linux Operating Systems without going over my usage cap. When I do go over the cap I can't buy more bandwidth without buying a secord dish and having it installed. I've been over the cap limit since November 27thish 2009. It's December 8th now. I've had to install a peice of software called wondershaper in Ubuntu to slow down my service so that I can keep from going over the cap just when surfing the web. I might have to lower my download speed below 56k just to be able to surf whenever I want. I still can't figure out what I can do to reduce my chances of going over the cap. I might have to get mobile broadband. I have to research modems online to switch to dialup or mobile broadband. With dial up I might need a 2nd phone line to get phone calls while I'm online. It may be pointless to an ISP to make it possible for the rural citizens to buy cable or dsl, but what have the ISPs done for me? Screw them. I'm suicidal because I live on a stupid farm. I should have the right to buy any service that anyone else can buy legally. I should also be able to get support for any operating system I choose. I don't give a shit what it would cost these greedy ISPs and even cable television services to sell me broadband. I don't live here by choice. My mom moved here. I can't get a job. My mom just got fired from her nursing job. If I can't have broadband so that I can download free music and videos then I should at least be able to go to a local library and check out any CD and DVD ever released. Why doesn't the government just make satellite technology a public service. They could forget HDTV antennas that way too. The government should quit charging for satellite altogether and we could use the satellites for everybody. Why don't we take the analog airwaves that HDTV just freed up and use it for internet signals. This government is not of by and for the people until it is of by and for everyone....
Posted by: i2Fuzzy at 12/08/2009 10:00:00 AM
Why not just actually use the USF?
Posted by: PSW at 12/08/2009 01:47:48 PM
JD makes a number of good points. I assisted with several applications for stimulus funds for rural internet service expansion. The terms that the companies applying for the grants have to agree to amount in essence to nationalization and / or socialization of business. The "payback" even with grants is very poor. Twenty - Thirty years or more. The hope is that growth will come and profit will follow. But how do you acheive growth without industry (jobs)? A better question is how would high speed internet benefit a community.........that would mostly use the service to play internet games.
Posted by: DW at 12/08/2009 03:40:51 PM
Here our government goes again---tax, tax, tax, and spend. I live in a rural area, I have satellite and it's fine. I pay almost as much in taxes and fees as I do on the phone bill it's self. It's always something they need more money for, never enough.
Posted by: dave at 12/10/2009 09:19:08 AM
I don't mind using services like satellite or cellular broadband if they would remove the caps. I have verizon wireless and it has a 5gig a month cap. If windows needs a serious update, there goes half of my internet for the month. Something needs to be done about that.
Posted by: George at 12/10/2009 11:26:19 AM
I would rather see our government focus on the goal: provide qulaity internet service at affordable prices to all -- regardless of where they live. I think that is a basic piece of our national infrastructure -- like the interstate highways...running cable is one way to do that -- but, do you run 100 miles of cable to get to the hermit on top of the mountain? And he may not even have a computer! And, if they manage this growth of cable like they did TV cable back in the 70's (granting a lot of monopolies in order to get a lot of kickbacks), then it will be even worse. I think we need to make internet available to all -- but let's do it intelligently, without agendas and kickbacks and using all available technology (such as satelite) wisely and appropriately... There is no magic formula for good judgement.
Posted by: Suz at 12/14/2009 09:35:04 PM
For those of you who downplay rural broadband ... you wanna take away their electricity and phone too?
Posted by: Bob at 01/29/2010 11:32:00 AM
"Leading telecom industry experts put it in the $200 billion to $300 billion range..." Something sounds terribly inflated with those numbers. I live in a rural area and my only option is 56K dialup which on poor phone lines becomes more like 33K. I have no problem surfing the web except for streaming video and audio. I have overcome most of the slow connection drawbacks by using multiple tabs on Firefox when I surf the web. When I get up in the morning, I hit the connect button which automatically connects to all my favorite five sites while I finish getting dressed and make some coffee. Then I sit down and the information is ready. If I see an interesting link to another site, I will click on it and let it load while I go read another tab. If I want to load a really large file, I simply click on it at night before I go to bed. With a little thought and planning ahead, a slow connection can be utilized to the max. I really don't want to pay more taxes so other people can watch movies or play video games. They can pay for their own entertainment.