PolicyBlog

Broken policy requires level-headed reforms that advance a greater good.  As we have all painfully seen this year in Washington, this is easier said than done. 

The debate around how to reform the archaic inter-carrier compensation (ICC) and Universal Service systems (USF) seems have been with us forever. Major players have historically never seen eye-to-eye, and in fact couldn’t even agree on the scope or nature of the problems. This has been the downfall of any effort to modernize and streamline these subsidy programs.   

What’s at stake? Besides rationalizing rates and distributing subsidies, the most necessary element of modern economic life: connecting several million mostly rural Americans to broadband.   

Reform has been attempted countless times over the last 15 years, but squabbling parties (yours truly included) couldn’t find common ground and real progress was never achieved. 

After all, when the sitting FCC Commissioners publicly announced their intent to tackle this tough challenge in 2011, a group of companies and associations with major interests at stake did the unthinkable – we sat down, discussed our differences face-to-face, and found common ground on which to build a detailed and realistic reform proposal.  In other words, we decided that for change to happen, we all had to make concessions.  (You can see details of the proposal here.) 

The proposals are not perfect, and no one got everything they wanted.  So perhaps our little corner of telecom policy making offers a lesson in the larger debate Tom has been discussing on this blog.  I’m not saying we did the truly unthinkable -- found a way for the Yankees and Red Sox to become BFFs (heaven forbid!) -- but the ABC Plan is proof that solutions can be forged out of what once appeared to be intractable differences.  Now is the time for the FCC to move forward – let’s not let the perfect deny consumers and businesses the benefits of a good solution that will deliver the benefits of broadband and modernized regulation.