Talk:Universal Service Fund

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Telecommunications High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I propose to add the following to the "Lifeline" section:

Lifeline Controversy

Some critics have expressed concern over the $2 billion cost of the Lifeline program. Some conservative legislators have proposed to end the Lifeline telephone subsidy, calling it "Obama Phone"^[1] citing the the rapid growth in cost. "The program has nearly tripled in size from $800 million in 2009 to $2.2 billion per year in 2012," the senior Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee wrote in a March 26 letter to the Democratic minority. "American taxpayers—and we as their elected representatives—need to know how much of this growth is because of waste, fraud and abuse."^[1]

But proponents of the program have pointed out that FCC has already moved to crack down on abuse. The FCC says this move saved $214 million in 2012, and predicts savings of over $400 million in 2013.^[1] Proponents have also pointed out that "Obama phone" is a misnomer, as the Lifeline program was begun by the FCC during the Reagan Administration^[2]. The low-income provision was added by Congress in 1996, when Bill Clinton was President but the Republican Party controlled both houses of CongressCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)., partly as a response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ^[3].

Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"By 1913, AT&T had favored status from U.S. government, allowing it to operate in a noncompetitive economic environment in exchange for subjection to price and quality service regulation"

It's called Monopoly pricing. It was the age of monopoly capitalism. It was the end of "free market" capitalism in the 1870's or there about. Isn't this article a little long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.250.100 (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present the article says "As of the first quarter of 2013, the USF fee, equals 16.1 percent of a telecom company's interstate end-user revenues. As of the second quarter of 2013, the USF fee is 15.5 percent."

This AT&T page about the fee says "As of April 1, 2007, the USF rate was changed from 2.91% to 3.32%."

Unless this is about two fees there apparently has been a huge jump from 3% to 15%. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest a merge from

link removed. Grantmidnight (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ObamaPhone section is just flat out propoganda. obamaphone doesn't actually exist (see lifelinefacts.com from Tracfone). Even Obamaphone.com admits that the Lifeline program is not specifically tied to Obama (obamaphone.com itself seems to be a owned by Hyperbole Media, which is a conservative content-creation site, look it up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maethlin (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there not voicing claiming that this is nothing else other than a dratted tax which wastes money with overhead expense and transfers money from the poor to corporate monsters, already overflowing with profit? Has not one claimed that this surcharge on the phone bill of the poor is at best paid back with a discount which would be effected simply by having no surcharge to begin with? (EnochBethany (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/telecom/rhcp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified 2 external links on Universal Service Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111192528/http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1027/DOC-310692A1.pdf to http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2011/db1027/DOC-310692A1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boucher.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2009%3Aboucher-terry-introduce-universal-service-reform-act-of-2010-july-22-2010&catid=33&Itemid=41

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Universal Service Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503082958/http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr313.shtml to http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_110/110nr313.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]