Telecommunications: FCC Has Reformed the High-Cost Program, but Oversight and Management Could be Improved
Released: 2012-07-25T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The Communications Act of 1934 first established the nation’s telecommunications policy, including making communications services available “so far as possible, to all the people of the United States.” Since the cost of providing telephone service in rural areas is generally higher than the cost of providing service in central cities of metropolitan areas, universal service policy has traditionally targeted financial support to rural and other high-cost areas. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Congress specified that consumers in “rural, insular, and high- cost areas” should have access to telecommunication rates and services that are “reasonably comparable” to consumers in urban areas. The 1996 Act established a Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board), which is composed of three FCC commissioners, four state regulatory commissioners, and a consumer advocate. The Joint Board makes recommendations to FCC on implementing the universal service related provisions of the 1996 Act. The 1996 Act also altered the federal mechanism for funding universal service by requiring telecommunications carriers and other entities providing interstate telecommunications service to contribute to USF, unless exempted by FCC. The carriers generally pass these costs on to customers, sometimes in the form of a line item on customer’s telephone bills. According to FCC, the average cost to each household in America is about $2.73 per month. The contributions are deposited into the USF and distributed to the telecommunications carriers that provide service.

USF provides financial support (i.e., subsidies) through four different programs, each targeting a particular group of telecommunications users (see table 1). In 2011, support for the four programs totaled $8 billion, and the high-cost program accounted for the largest amount of support—$4 billion, or 50 percent of USF support. The high-cost program directly and indirectly supports basic telephone (i.e., fixed wireline), broadband, and wireless telephone (i.e., mobile) services. To make these services universally available, the high-cost program offers support to both wireline and wireless carriers operating in high-cost areas—generally rural—to offset costs, thereby allowing these carriers to provide rates and services that are comparable to the rates and services that consumers in low cost areas—generally urban—receive. Consequently, while urban consumers pay the full cost of their service, many rural consumers receive services that are subsidized by the high-cost fund.

The USF support a carrier can receive depends on various factors, including its status as either the incumbent or a competitor, and the number of lines it claims in its service territory. Incumbent carriers are telephone carriers for a given service area that were in existence when Congress passed the 1996 Act and were members of NECA. These incumbent carriers are further classified as either “rural”—generally small carriers serving primarily rural areas—or “nonrural”—generally large carriers serving both rural and urban areas. Many small rural carriers are subject to rate-of-return regulation, while nonrural carriers are usually larger and subject to price-cap regulations and provide service to approximately 95 percent of U.S. households, according to FCC officials.

Federal and state governments play a role in implementing the federal high-cost program, as do not-for-profit corporations and associations. FCC has overall responsibility for the federal high-cost program, including making and interpreting policy, overseeing program operations, and ensuring compliance with its rules. However, FCC delegated to USAC responsibility to administer the day-to-day operations of the high-cost program. State regulatory commissions hold the primary responsibility to determine carrier eligibility for program participation (i.e., states designate eligibility status of carriers) and to annually certify that carriers will appropriately use high-cost program support. Table 2 summarizes the general roles and responsibilities of the agencies and organizations involved in high-cost program administration.

The 2010 National Broadband Plan provided a road map for FCC to reform the high-cost program, among other USF programs, to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband-capable networks. The National Broadband Plan concluded that millions of Americans do not have access to broadband infrastructure at the target of 4 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1 Mbps upload. The plan recommended, among other things, creating a Connect America Fund to address broadband availability gaps in unserved areas. The plan also recommended creating a Mobility Fund to provide support for deployment of a wireless network. As we previously reported, implementing the plan’s recommendations and ensuring universal broadband availability will be challenging, and it remains to be seen whether and how effectively FCC will be able to address these challenges and implement the plan’s recommendations.

FCC Aims to Improve Efficiency and Provide Support for Broadband through Changes to the High- Cost Program

FCC Adopted New Rules to Support Broadband

FCC adopted new rules to fundamentally change the high-cost program by extending the program to support broadband capable networks. According to FCC, the new rules will not adversely affect traditional voice services; rather the changes will ensure that affordable voice and broadband services are available to all Americans by 2017. The new rules also addressed multiple recommendations from the National Broadband Plan. See appendix III for the status of FCC’s efforts related to those recommendations and a timeline for implementing the new rules. In adopting the USF Transformation Order, FCC said it would control the size of the fund as it transitions to support broadband and require accountability from carriers receiving support to ensure that public investments are used wisely to deliver intended results. The order outlines the following rules intended to improve the high-cost program and enable it to support broadband capable networks: Establishing a program budget for the first time. FCC set a budget of $4.5 billion annually over the next 6 years by taking a number of actions, including placing a cap on total per-line support, freezing certain support for service providers at current levels, eliminating or phasing down certain types of support, and setting caps for rate-of-return carriers’ capital and operating expenses. FCC also established an automatic review trigger if the program budget is threatened to be exceeded. Specifically, the USF Transformation Order states that if program demand exceeds the annualized $4.5 billion budget over any consecutive 4 quarters once fund reserves are exhausted, FCC will initiate a process to bring demand back under budget. According to FCC, the $4.5 billion, which was set at the 2011 estimated level of support, will provide a predictable funding level for carriers and protect consumers and businesses that ultimately pay for the fund as FCC expands the program to support broadband. In the past, the high-cost program was not constrained by a specified level of funding and we and other stakeholders have previously raised concerns about the growing size of the program. The National Broadband Plan recommended that FCC try to keep the overall size of the fund close to its current size (in 2010 dollars) and FCC stated that the budget will help to ensure that consumers will not pay more in contributions given the new program rules.

Creating the Connect America Fund. FCC created the Connect America Fund, which will ultimately replace the high-cost fund, to make both wireline and wireless broadband available in unserved areas. Within the Connect America Fund, FCC established support for mobile voice and broadband services, recognizing that promoting universal availability of mobile services is a vital component of universal service. Specifically, FCC established the Mobility Fund, which is the first universal service mechanism dedicated to ensuring availability of mobile voice and broadband services in areas where service is currently not available. In 2012, FCC dedicated $300 million (one-time) for extending wireless coverage in unserved areas and $500 million annually for ongoing support for mobile voice and broadband service.

Establishing public interest obligations for all eligible carriers. Previously, carriers were required to meet state public interest obligations and limited federal duties as eligible telecommunications carriers to receive USF support payments; however, carriers were not required to meet any specific performance standards in exchange for receiving the funds. Under the USF Transformation Order, FCC requires all carriers to offer broadband services in their supported service areas, meet certain broadband performance requirements, and report regularly on associated broadband performance measures. For instance, one of the broadband performance requirements is for carriers providing service to fixed locations to offer actual download speeds of at least 4 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 1 Mbps to broadband subscribers.

FCC Is Implementing Changes to Its Funding Distribution to Improve Program Efficiency

In the USF Transformation Order, FCC changed its method for distributing funds to carriers to address some of the recognized program inefficiencies. According to FCC, these changes will allow it to reduce high-cost support for carriers providing only voice services and make funds available to carriers for the deployment of both voice and broadband-capable networks. Since many of these changes have yet to be implemented, it is too early to assess their effectiveness. In the order, FCC took the following actions: Eliminated the identical support rule. To encourage competition among carriers in rural areas, in 1997 FCC enacted the identical support rule. At that time, FCC concluded that it would be inconsistent with the statute and the competitive goals of the 1996 Act to exclude any providers (regardless of the technology used for providing voice service) from receiving universal service support and therefore determined that universal service support should be available to all carriers that met the eligibility requirements, including competitive carriers that offered service via satellite or other wireless technology. Under this model, incumbent carriers received support based on their costs of providing service in an area or from FCC’s cost model and competitive carriers received the same amount of support per line served as the incumbent, regardless of whether the competitor needed that same amount of support to provide service. FCC assumed that high-cost support would be given to the most efficient and competitive carriers providing fixed, wireline telephone service (not mobile wireless providers), as they attracted customers from the incumbent carriers in a competitive marketplace. FCC anticipated that as the number of subscribers taking service from a more efficient competitor increased, the number of subscribers taking service from the incumbent would decrease, thereby decreasing the amount of support FCC paid to the incumbent providers. However, the vast majority of support payments for competitors went to wireless carriers and rather than providing a complete substitute for traditional wireline service, wireless competitors largely provided mobile voice service to customers who also had wireline service. Thus, FCC ended up paying support for both incumbents and competitors serving the same area, which caused disbursements from the fund to increase dramatically.

In the USF Transformation Order, FCC acknowledged that the existing system of providing high-cost support to competitive carriers that were serving the same customers as the incumbent providers was inefficient and the identical support rule failed to efficiently target support payments to where they were most needed. By eliminating the identical support rule, FCC can stop paying competitive carriers providing voice services and make those funds available for fixed and mobile voice and broadband services in targeted areas, including areas unserved by broadband. Several of the stakeholders and economists we contacted supported FCC’s decision to eliminate the identical support rule, noting that it was inefficient and ineffective. Starting January 1, 2012, FCC froze support for each competitive carrier at the 2011 monthly baseline amount. Beginning July 1, 2012, FCC stated it would reduce support for each competitive carrier by 20 percent annually for the next 5 years, with the aim of fully eliminating support by July 1, 2016.

Eliminated support in areas with 100 percent overlap. FCC also eliminated high-cost support for incumbent carriers in areas where an unsubsidized competitor—or a combination of unsubsidized competitors—also provides voice and broadband in the same service area, known as 100 percent overlap. During the course of its proceedings, FCC found that in many areas of the country, the high-cost program provided more support than necessary to achieve its goals by “subsidizing a competitor to a voice and broadband provider that was offering service without government assistance.” Significant improvements in technology have made it possible for some cable operators to offer many services, including both voice and broadband. As such, cable operators have become unsubsidized competitors, offering both voice and broadband services in the same service areas as incumbent carriers. A report commissioned by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association found that $504 million of high-cost support went to 277 rural incumbent carriers’ service area in which unsubsidized cable voice service was available to more than half of all households. The report also found that in many areas, cable operators offer voice service to more than 75 percent of the households, and in some cases they offer service to 90-100 percent of households in an incumbent carriers’ study area. Documents FCC made available to a congressional committee also showed evidence that other carriers, both wireless and wireline, provide service in high-cost areas but do not receive high-cost support. For example, in an area in which the incumbent carrier received $1.7 million (almost $13,000 per line) annually in 2009, four wireless carriers provided voice service to more than 90 percent of that carrier’s service area without receiving USF support.

FCC acknowledged that providing high-cost support in areas of the country where another voice and broadband provider offers high-quality service without government assistance is an inefficient use of high-cost support, and therefore plans to eliminate support in areas with 100 percent overlap service. An economist we contacted raised concerns on how FCC will identify and eliminate support for incumbent carriers in areas where unsubsidized competitors provide coverage. Details on the methodology and data to be used for determining overlap areas are currently unknown, but FCC plans to phase out, over a 3 year period, all support for incumbent carriers in those areas where unsubsidized competitors offer voice and broadband services for 100 percent of the residential and business locations in the incumbent’s service area.

Established a new method to distribute funds to price-cap carriers. Prior to the USF Transformation Order, FCC distributed high-cost support to price-cap carriers through multiple mechanisms: for example, in some areas FCC used a cost model to determine the costs of providing service in a specific area, while in other areas, support was based on actual cost of service. FCC recognized that this method of distributing high-cost funds needed to be changed to accelerate broadband deployment in unserved areas. Therefore, FCC changed the rules to (1) freeze the amount of high-cost support distributed to the price-cap carriers at the 2011 support level, and (2) starting when there are model-set support amounts and auction rules in place (which FCC anticipated would be in January 2013) and for the next 5 years, employ a new model and competitive bidding to support networks that can provide both voice and Specifically, FCC plans to develop a model that broadband services. can be used for each census block in high-cost areas to determine the amount of support required to extend and sustain a broadband-capable network. Each incumbent price-cap carrier will have the opportunity to accept the annual support derived from the model in each state in which it operates. In exchange for accepting the support, a carrier must continue providing voice service, commit to deploying broadband service, and meet public interest obligations associated with all the eligible census blocks in its territory. If an incumbent price-cap carrier declines, then FCC will put the service area up for competitive bid. The winning bidder will be required to provide voice and broadband services, and will receive the amount of support the carrier bid to provide service.

Stakeholders we contacted had mixed views on FCC’s plans for using both a model and competitive bidding. Several economists we interviewed commented that while FCC’s planned model may be an improvement over the previous distribution mechanism, it may not be the most effective way for distributing support because using a model is data intensive and requires accurate and reliable data from carriers. On the other hand, telecommunications stakeholders commented that if the variables used in the model are relatively accurate, the model may ensure that support is properly targeted to the areas most in need.

Changed the method for determining support levels for rate-of- return carriers. Prior to the USF Transformation Order, rate-of-return carriers received funding from the high-cost fund based on their actual costs. Under the old rules, some carriers were reimbursed for up to 100 percent of their eligible expenditures, faced no FCC imposed limits, and had no incentive to be more efficient. Under the new rules, FCC is taking multiple actions to target support for investments in broadband, increase accountability, and increase incentives for efficient use of public resources. The reform measures include limiting reimbursements for capital and operating expenses, and establishing an overall cap on the amount of support, totaling $250 per line per month, or $3,000 annually. The cap will be phased in over a 3-year period. Some economists we spoke with commented that it does not go far enough to make the mechanism more efficient. Two economists told us that if the reform were to have any impact, the cap needed to be further reduced to $100 per line per month.

FCC has also adopted a rule to limit support to carriers whose end-user rates (i.e., basic telephone rates that carriers charge their customers) do not meet a local rate floor. During the course of its proceedings, FCC found that some carriers receiving high-cost support were offering basic voice plans as low as $5 per month, in comparison to the 2008 national average local rate of $15.62. The law requires that urban and rural rates be reasonably comparable, which FCC has implemented by requiring that rural consumers pay no more than two standard deviations above the average of what urban consumers pay for the same level of voice service. To address this inefficiency, FCC has adopted a rule to reduce high-cost support for carriers whose end-user rates for voice service do not meet the local rate floor.

Furthermore, to help ensure that the reform efforts do not adversely affect traditional voice service, FCC developed a waiver process for carriers that contend the reforms will affect their ability to provide reasonably comparable service at reasonably comparable rates if FCC reduces their current support levels. In petitioning FCC for a waiver, a carrier must clearly demonstrate that good cause exists for exempting it from some or all of the reforms, and that the waiver is necessary and in the public interest to ensure that consumers in the area continue to receive voice service. FCC cautioned that those seeking a waiver would be subject to a rigorous review, including an accounting of all revenues that the carrier receives. However, for those carriers receiving a waiver, FCC has not yet determined if it would impose a ceiling on the amount of support a carrier could receive per line.

FCC Has Taken Steps to Address Previously Identified Oversight and Management Challenges, but Issues Remain

FCC Steps to Address Management Challenges

We and OMB have each issued a report in the last 7 years critical of FCC’s management of the high-cost fund and in the USF Transformation Order, FCC has taken several steps to address these challenges. The management challenges we identified included a lack of performance goals and measures for the program and weak internal controls, resulting in FCC’s limited ability to oversee the actions of carriers or the data they provide. In 2005, OMB criticized FCC’s inability to measure the effect of the fund on subscribership in rural areas or to base funding decisions on any indication of measurable benefits. To address these challenges, FCC has (1) established performance goals and measures for the high- cost program, (2) improved its internal control mechanisms over the fund, and (3) directed USAC to undertake additional oversight and management actions.

In 2008, we reported that FCC lacked specific performance goals or measures for the high-cost program. OMB reported that the high-cost program neither measures the impact of funds on telephone subscribership in rural areas nor bases funding decisions on measureable benefits. As a result, after spending more than $41.1 billion in high-cost funds since 2001, we reported that it was still unclear what FCC had achieved through the program. In our report in 2008, we recommended that FCC establish short- and long-term performance goals and measures to make clear the program’s intentions and accomplishments.

As shown in table 3, FCC developed five performance goals and three performance measures for the high-cost program in the USF Transformation Order. As of July 2012, FCC was still formulating measures for the remaining two goals.

In 2008, we also reported weaknesses in FCC’s internal control mechanisms, including the carrier certification process, carrier audits, and carrier data validation. State officials’ annual certification of carriers is the primary tool used to determine if carriers are operating according to the high-cost fund’s guidelines. However, because the certification requirements were not standardized across states, carriers have been subject to varying levels of oversight. Audits of carriers are the primary tool used to oversee carrier activities, and audits may be conducted by USAC, state regulatory commissions, or FCC’s Office of Inspector General. In 2008, we reported that from 2002 to 2008, USAC had conducted about 17 audits, from more than 1,400 carriers participating annually in the high-cost program. We also found in a survey that 7 out of 50 state regulatory commissions reported auditing incumbent carriers. Based on these findings, among others, we determined that FCC’s internal controls were weak and that its ability to adequately oversee the high-cost program was hindered. In addition, neither FCC nor USAC had audited the carrier-reported data for accuracy, and they did not follow up to assess whether the actions carriers claimed they were taking with regard to using high-cost support were consistent with the actions they actually were taking. We recommended that FCC identify areas of risk in its internal control environment and implement mechanisms to help ensure carriers’ compliance with program rules.

In the USF Transformation Order, FCC addressed all three of the areas we discussed in our 2008 report. To standardize the certification requirements and bring more scrutiny to the data reported by carriers, FCC established a national oversight framework that will be implemented as a partnership between FCC and the states, U.S. territories, and tribal governments. This framework will include annual reporting and certification requirements for all carriers receiving universal service funds and is designed to provide federal and state regulators with the information needed to determine whether recipients are using support for the intended purposes. Under the new standards, all carriers must include in their annual reports to FCC and their respective state commissions a progress report on their 5-year build-out plans, data, and explanatory text concerning outages, unfulfilled requests for service, and complaints received. They must also certify compliance with applicable service quality and consumer protection standards and further certify their ability to function in emergency situations.

To address the lack of audits on the part of FCC and USAC, FCC directed USAC to review and enhance two programs that are intended to oversee and safeguard USF. FCC developed these programs in coordination with OMB in 2010 to ensure that recipients of USF support comply with FCC rules, and to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse. FCC expects that these audits will verify the accuracy of the underlying data and address our previously reported concern that FCC does not validate the accuracy of data reported by carriers. Additionally, FCC directed USAC to annually assess compliance with the new requirements established for Connect America Fund recipients and test the accuracy of carriers’ certifications.improve FCC’s oversight of program funds, it is too soon to assess their effectiveness.

Gaps in FCC’s Oversight and Management of the High-Cost Program

While FCC has taken steps to address several shortcomings of the high- cost program, our review of the order has identified gaps in FCC’s plans to better oversee the program and make it more effective and efficient. Specifically, we determined that FCC lacks (1) a data-analysis plan for carrier data it will collect, and (2) a mechanism to link carrier rates and revenues with USF support payments.

In the past, FCC had no way to measure the effectiveness of the high- cost program because it did not collect adequate data at the service area level, i.e., a geographic area served by a specific carrier that would allow FCC to measure the effect of the funds by carrier on subscribership As a result, FCC did not know if high-cost funds were achieving levels.their intended purpose. Economists have pointed out that to determine if high-cost funds were achieving their intended purpose, FCC would need to determine whether the provision of funds had caused an increase in the level of subscribership that would not have occurred in the absence of the funds. To assess program effectiveness, FCC would need to collect data showing the outcomes (i.e., the change in the level of telephone subscriptions) in study areas that used these funds as well as the outcomes in study areas where these funds were not used.

Under the USF Transformation Order, FCC will start collecting data from carriers that receive Connect America Fund monies on (1) the amount of funding the carriers received, (2) their build-out of infrastructure for broadband capable networks, and (3) service quality and speed in the level of broadband service provided. According to the order, FCC is collecting the information to monitor progress in achieving its broadband goals and to assist FCC in determining whether the funds are being used appropriately. However, FCC’s order does not articulate a specific data- analysis plan for the carrier data it will collect and it is unclear if or how FCC plans to use the data. We have previously noted that sound program evaluation should include a detailed data-analysis plan to track the program’s performance and evaluate its final results. Lacking such an evaluation, the achievements and overall effectiveness of the Connect America Fund are less likely to be clear and FCC might not have the analysis to determine what changes should be made to improve the program. Analyzing the carrier data could enable FCC to determine the program’s effectiveness because the analysis would provide some definitive examples of the connection between the level of subsidy and the specific demographic factors of the service areas that have shown an increase in broadband access. Furthermore, such analysis would enable FCC to adjust the size of the Connect America Fund based on sound evaluation and would allow Congress and FCC to make better informed decisions about the future of the program and how program efficiency could be improved. Although FCC plans to determine the number of residential, business, and community anchor institution locations that have newly gained access to broadband service per $1 million spent in USF subsidy, such an evaluation does not provide any direct link between an increase in broadband access and funding subsidies provided by the Connect America Fund. In other words, FCC will know the extent to which broadband access has changed over time, but it will not know what factors have influenced the change.

One of FCC’s performance goals (and a requirement in statute) is to ensure that rates for broadband and voice services are reasonably comparable in all regions of the country. FCC has defined voice rates as being reasonably comparable if the rural rate is equal to or greater than the average urban rate but not by more than two standard deviations. However, in the USF Transformation Order, FCC reported that many rural carriers are offering basic local rates for telephone service that are lower than the average basic local rate paid by urban consumers. In fact, FCC cited data submitted by NECA which summarized 2008 residential rates for over 600 companies — a broad cross-section of carriers that typically receive universal service support — showing that approximately 60 percent of those carriers offered pricing plans that were below the 2008 national average local rate of $15.62. (According to FCC information published in 2008, if the average urban rate plus federal and state charges were $25.62, rural rates plus federal and state charges could be as high as $36.52.) Two of the economists we contacted have written on the inequity of this urban-rural rate difference, stressing that an effect of this inequity could be the transfer of wealth from poor urban consumers who pay into the fund but receive no subsidy, to wealthy rural consumers who benefit from subsidized rates.

USF Transformation Order, para 235 & 240. consumers across the country to subsidize the cost of service for some consumers that pay local service rates that are significantly lower than the national urban average.” FCC officials told us they plan to determine how much carrier revenue would increase if the rural rates increased to the urban rate average. However, because FCC does not include carrier revenues in determining USF support payments for the carriers, FCC will allow carriers that subsequently raise their rates to the national urban average to receive the support payments they were initially denied when their rates were below the specified floor. As a result, FCC’s incentive mechanism to raise rural rates will not result in any reduction in the amount consumers are charged for universal service. Members of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) we contacted expressed concern that the level of USF support payments is not tied to a carrier’s rates and revenues. They explained that carriers’ revenues come from services other than basic local service, but all of those services are carried over the networks to which consumers have contributed for years through the USF. These revenues are not included in the determination of USF payments that the carriers will receive. In addition, of the six economists we interviewed who are knowledgeable about how universal service support payments are determined, four explicitly mentioned revenues as one of the factors that should be taken into account for modeling the level of support that carriers receive.

In 2007, the Joint Board adopted as a basic principle that USF should exist within a limited budget and made several recommendations to help FCC do so, including considering a carrier’s revenues when calculating its need for USF support. Controlling the growth of the high-cost fund could help FCC achieve its goal of minimizing the universal service contribution burden on consumers and businesses. Similar to the points raised by NASUCA and four of the economists we contacted, the Joint Board believed in 2007 that if broadband was to become a funded universal service, then the mechanisms used to calculate support payments should be revised to take into account the carriers’ net profits from selling broadband to wireline customers. The Joint Board noted that such profits should be measured and used to offset some of the carriers’ claims for explicit USF support. However, in 2008, FCC declined to implement the Joint Board’s recommendation related to considering carrier revenues when calculating support payments. According to the Joint Board, FCC did not address why the Joint Board’s recommendation had not been adopted.

Under the USF Transformation Order, FCC will consider a carrier’s revenue when determining support payments under certain circumstances. In particular, for those carriers that petition for a waiver to exempt the carrier from some or all USF reforms, FCC intends to subject such requests to a rigorous, thorough, and searching review comparable to a total company earnings review. In those cases, FCC intends to take into account not only all revenues derived from network facilities that are supported by universal service, but also revenues derived from unregulated and unsupported services as well. As we noted previously, under the USF Transformation Order, FCC is developing a new model to revise its method for calculating carrier support, since FCC recognized that the prior method of distributing high-cost funds needed to be changed to accelerate broadband deployment in unserved areas. However, FCC has not stated what factors, such as carrier revenues, will be included in the model.

Conclusions

FCC has undertaken the difficult task of reforming the high-cost program to make it more efficient and thus able to support both voice and broadband services. In the USF Transformation Order, FCC said it would control the size of USF as it transitions to support broadband and adopted new rules to make the fund more efficient as a way to minimize the universal service contribution burden on consumers and businesses. As FCC looks to broaden the scope of the high-cost program by providing support for broadband capable networks, it is therefore important for FCC to ensure that the limited program funds are used as effectively and efficiently as possible to stem further growth in the fund. Historically, FCC has not collected data at the level economists agree is necessary to determine the overall effectiveness of the high-cost program or demonstrate that the program increased telephone subscribership beyond the level that would have been achieved if there were no subsidy. Rather, FCC has assumed that the subsidies going to carriers were positively affecting subscribership even though it collected no empirical data to support that conclusion. In the USF Transformation Order, FCC instituted performance goals and measures with the intention of ensuring that the reforms achieve their intended purpose, and will require those carriers receiving support from the Connect America Fund to submit additional information. However, FCC has no specific data-analysis plan for the carrier data it will collect. Such analysis could enable FCC to correlate the amount of money spent with the increase in broadband access in specific areas and thus help FCC to determine the effectiveness of Connect America Fund expenditures. Lacking such analysis, the program’s achievements and overall effectiveness are less likely to be clear and Congress and FCC might not have the information necessary to make informed decisions about the program’s future.

According to statute, urban and rural telecommunication rates should be reasonably comparable, but many rural consumers, whose rates are supported through the high-cost fund, pay rates that are lower than many urban consumers. FCC has stated that it is not equitable for all consumers to subsidize the cost of service for some consumers who pay local service rates that are significantly lower than the national average. In addition, given the way the high-cost program is funded, it is possible that poor urban consumers are subsidizing wealthy rural consumers. To provide an incentive for carriers to raise rates in rural areas, FCC plans to penalize carriers with rates that are too low by reducing the amount of high-cost support they can receive. While this action should help rural and urban rates become more comparable, it will not prevent consumers from subsidizing the cost of service for those areas where rates are too low because FCC will continue to allow carriers to receive the same amount of subsidy once their rates are raised to the urban mean. Therefore, although FCC would like to prevent consumers from subsidizing carriers whose rates for basic local service are artificially low, its incentive mechanism to raise rural rates will not reduce the financial burden placed on all consumers as there is currently no connection between the amount of support payments a carrier receives and the revenue a carrier earns, through rates or any other source. In addition to voicing concern for the potential inequity of rural rates that are lower than urban rates, FCC has a stated goal to minimize the universal service contribution burden on consumers and businesses. The National Broadband Plan recommended that FCC keep the overall size of the fund close to its 2010 funding level, and the Joint Board has stated its strong commitment to limit the size of the fund. As a way to control the size of the fund, the Joint Board recommended that FCC consider a carrier’s revenues when calculating its need for USF support but FCC declined to implement this recommendation. Under the USF Transformation Order, FCC has the opportunity to revisit this issue as it develops a new model to determine the amount of support a carrier should receive, however it has not stated what factors will be included in the model.

Recommendations for Executive Action

FCC should take the following two actions:

To determine the overall effectiveness of the Connect America Fund as well as improve the oversight and transparency of the high-cost program, establish a specific data-analysis plan for the carrier data and make the information publicly available.

To help minimize the universal service contribution burden on consumers and businesses, as FCC examines and revises the manner in which carrier support payments are calculated, consult with the Joint Board and/or make appropriate referrals to determine what factors, such as carrier revenues, should be considered in the calculation.

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for its review and comment. In response, FCC stated that our recommendations were valuable and noted that it has taken steps to address the oversight and management challenges we previously identified. Specifically, FCC noted that in the USF Transformation Order, FCC has adopted performance goals, set forth requirements to provide voice and broadband service to all Americans, and established a national framework to ensure that recipients who benefit from public investment in their networks have clearly defined public interest obligations and reporting requirements. FCC’s written response also included information to further clarify the actions that are currently under way related to the USF Transformation Order. With respect to our first recommendation, FCC agreed that it should establish a specific plan to analyze the data reported by the carriers as a way to improve oversight of the program, and noted it is planning to build on measures adopted in the USF Transformation Order to improve the effectiveness of the new program. Related to our second recommendation, FCC agreed that revenues derived from infrastructure supported by universal service are an important consideration when determining support provided to carriers, and FCC appreciated our suggestion that it work with the Joint Board to implement the reforms in the USF Transformation Order. FCC’s written comments are reprinted in appendix II.

FCC provided technical comments on the draft report that we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of FCC and appropriate congressional committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Contact information and major contributors to this report are listed on appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) plans to refocus and expand the high-cost program of the Universal Service Fund (USF) to provide support for broadband-capable networks. In particular, the report provides information on (1) FCC’s plans for repurposing the USF high-cost program for broadband services and (2) how FCC is planning to address previously identified oversight and management challenges as it broadens the scope of the program.

To understand FCC’s plans for repurposing the high-cost program for broadband service, we reviewed and analyzed FCC’s USF Transformation Order and associated stakeholder comments. We interviewed officials from FCC, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), and the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) on the rule changes outlined in the order and other actions that FCC has taken to repurpose USF to support broadband services in addition to voice services. We analyzed and assessed the previous and planned high-cost program structure and method of distributing funds. We also reviewed and analyzed telecommunications stakeholders’ filings and studies on the potential impact of FCC’s planned changes to the existing high-cost program. We limited the scope of our review to the USF high- cost program because in the USF Transformation Order, FCC focused on repurposing the high-cost program to support broadband. Although FCC made changes to intercarrier compensation in the USF Transformation Order, we did not review FCC’s reform efforts related to intercarrier compensation. Intercarrier compensation refers to the charges that one carrier pays to another carrier to originate, transport, and/or terminate telecommunications traffic. The intercarrier compensation regimes are governed by a complex and different system of federal and state rules than those of universal services; therefore, we decided not to review intercarrier compensation.

To determine how FCC is planning to address previously identified oversight and management challenges as it broadens the scope of the program, we reviewed our past reports, documents from the Office of Management and Budget and FCC’s Office of Inspector General, and academic literature related to the high-cost program of USF. We met with telecommunications stakeholders, including associations representing consumers, small and large telecommunications carriers, and state regulatory commissions, to obtain their views on FCC’s management of and the changes made to the high-cost program. We identified industry stakeholders based on prior published literature, including filings with FCC, and other stakeholders’ recommendations. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with economists from academia and the telecommunications industry, recognized for their thorough knowledge of universal service. The economists we spoke with were selected based on studies focused on the high-cost program of USF, published within the last 5 years, and recommendations from telecommunications industry stakeholders, including associations representing telecommunications carriers, consumers, and state regulatory commissions. See table 4 for the stakeholders and economists we contacted.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to July 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission

Appendix III: Federal Communications Commission’s Action to Implement National Broadband Plan Recommendations Related to the Universal Service Fund and Implement the USF Transformation Order

In early 2009, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop a broadband plan to ensure every American has “access to broadband capability” and to report annually on the state of broadband availability. In March 2010, an FCC task force issued the National Broadband Plan, which provided a road map for FCC to reform Universal Service Fund (USF) and the high-cost program, in particular. The National Broadband Plan made 11 recommendations as it relates to universal service. FCC has implemented or partially implemented 3 and is planning to implement the remaining 8 recommendations. Table 5 provides information on actions FCC has taken to enact the selected recommendations made in the National Broadband Plan.

In the USF Transformation Order, released in November 2011, FCC took action to realize the overarching goal of the National Broadband Plan to make affordable broadband service available to all Americans. In particular, FCC adopted a number of actions designed to transition universal service funds from supporting only voice service to supporting networks that can provide both voice and broadband services. Table 6 displays FCC’s timeline for making this transition.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Sally Moino, Assistant Director; Pedro Almoguera; Colin Fallon; David Hooper; Jennifer Kim; Andrew Stavisky; and Nancy Zearfoss made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

Telecommunications: FCC’s Performance Management Weaknesses Could Jeopardize Proposed Reforms of the Rural Health Care Program. GAO-11-27. Washington, D.C.: November 17, 2010.

Telecommunications: Improved Management Can Enhance FCC Decision Making for the Universal Service Fund Low-Income Program. GAO-11-11. Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2010.

Telecommunications: FCC Should Assess the Design of the E-rate Program’s Internal Control Structure. GAO-10-908. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2010.

Telecommunications: Long-Term Strategic Vision Would Help Ensure Targeting of E-rate Funds to Highest-Priority Uses. GAO-09-253. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2009.

Telecommunications: FCC Needs to Improve Performance Management and Strengthen Oversight of the High-Cost Program. GAO-08-633. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2008.