FCC asks SCOTUS to uphold Constitutionality of rural phone and internet subsidies

Nov 22, 2024, Court grants challenge to FCC subsidies over nondelegation doctrine, SCOTUSblog

Schools Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition or SHLB, advocates for policies and programs that enable anchor institutions to obtain and promote open, secure, high-quality broadband services to support connectivity and opportunity for all in the US. This would include areas having a lesser quality of communication as was shown in an early commentary at Angry Bear, “Healthcare and Reliable High-Speed Internet are Necessities.” It is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to closing the digital divide by promoting high-quality broadband for Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs).

So, how does this fit into what I am seeing. Well, nearly 3 million Americans live in mostly rural counties lacking both health care and reliable high-speed internet. This is detailed in the analysis by KFF Health News as shown at Angry Bear. The people in these areas tend to live sicker and die younger than others in America.

Congress supports universal service for telecommunications and similar technology. However, there are practical obstacles to this goal. The provision of telecommunications and similar technology in rural areas can be and more expensive to wire because residents are unconcentrated in areas. In these areas and if telephone and internet providers charged a fair market rate, the services would be exclusionary expensive.

In the long run, people should support such endeavors. A well-informed population is essential cities is essential to the population. Such services prove for the welfare of the nation as a whole.

Congress created the Universal Service Fund. It effectively taxes telephone and internet service providers, using the additional funds to pay for the infrastructure and the service to underserved communities. The service providers pass the cost of these fees to their customers in urban and other lesser cost areas. Said in a different manner, Americans living in the populated areas provide telephone, internet service and infrastructure to the sparsely populated regions of the country. A well-informed population maintains the nation as a whole strengthening relationship and fostering community.

The amount of funding varies from year to year.

FCC v. Consumers’ Research (consolidated with SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research) (March 26) – A challenge to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that invalidated parts of a FCC program to improve internet and phone services in underserved areas. The court of appeals ruled that the program violated the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’s power to the FCC and the FCC’s power to a private company. Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, SCOTUS Blog.

The most relevant issue being whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund. Or simply said did Congress violate the nondelegation doctrine at various levels. We do have attorneys on site who could weigh in on this.

The program has been in play without an incident for nearly three decades. It was created in 1996. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit abruptly declared it unconstitutional (what a surprise). This is how the Fifth Circuit’s COA works and it is common place there.

Historically, the Fifth Circuit is the most right-wing appeals court in the federal system. Its judges often strike down decades-old laws based on unusually creative interpretations of the Constitution. Trump has his eye on one 5th District judge (Oldham) to replace Thomas or Alito. Not many positive remarks on this judge.

A brief summary: “The FCC argues that the fund is a constitutional delegation of congressional power because the relevant statute provides a number of “intelligible principles” — a key factor in distinguishing permissible grants of discretion from unconstitutional delegations of power — to guide the FCC’s actions when setting fees. In addition, it contends that the private company wields only administrative authority over the fund, not any policymaking power to set fees or subsidy rates, and in any event is subject to significant agency control.”

FCC asks court to uphold constitutionality of nationwide rural phone and internet subsidies, SCOTUSblog. Much to be lost here if SCOTUS decides against the FCC.