More Jockeying on Draft USF NPRM Including by FCC Members

of this item," he tweeted Thursday. "Beyond not having read it, these people don’t seem to have any idea what they are talking about. Shocking for DC, I know." Three of four "USF programs already have hard spending caps & the other has a soft cap requiring Commission action if it were exceeded," he said. "An overall cap doesn’t add new budgetary pressures than those that already exist!" He said, "Instead, an overall cap will force the Commission to seriously grapple with the consequences of raising an individual program’s cap for the total fund, and more thoughtfully confront how it spends consumers’ hard-earned dollars." Commissioner Geoffrey Starks tweeted, "How can we talk about capping our Universal Service programs at a time when the Commission doesn’t seem to have a good handle on who currently has broadband and who does not?" The reported proposal (see 1903270042) "to cap USF funding directly contradicts Chairman [Ajit] Pai’s oft-repeated mantra that his primary focus is to close the digital divide," said Public Knowledge Communications Justice Fellow Alisa Valentin. "Congress has long directed the Commission to ensure that every American has access to essential communications services." Benton Foundation Executive Editor Kevin Taglang said, "We can’t extend broadband’s reach throughout rural America with a USF cap." It's "premature" to consider capping Lifeline, one part of USF, said National Consumer Law Center Staff Attorney Olivia Wein. This would "unnecessarily ration Lifeline support," she added.