honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Phone service subsidy program needs revision

StoryChat: Comment on this story

GET INVOLVED

For details on reforms to the United Service Fund (dockets 05-337, 96-45), go to: www.access.gpo.gov (scroll to Federal Communications Commission, Proposed Rules).

Comments are due June 6. To submit comments, go to the FCC site (www.fcc.gov), and click the "Submit a Filing" link.

spacer spacer

The Universal Service Fund, a federal subsidy program that was meant to ensure telecommunications service in rural areas, has become wasteful of consumer resources and needs serious revision.

Such complaints are springing up nationwide from communities where phone-company subscribers are tired of subsidizing a service that has grown fat and lacks any system checks to see that it runs at peak efficiency.

Hawai'i has become one such community; that much was made clear by a story by Advertiser business writer Sean Hao.

It's a relief, at least, that the Federal Communication Commission recognizes this and has begun work on reforms. The proposals floated so far — including an emergency cap on the payouts and restricting the subsidy to coverage of actual costs — merit serious consideration.

Anyone doubting the need for reform should consider the magnitude of the waste.

For almost a decade, Sandwich Isles Communications Inc. has been collecting what amounts to $765 a month per customer from the fund to subsidize costs in providing phone service to Hawaiian Home Lands residents. Two years ago, Sprint Nextel Corp. started receiving the same allowance and, more recently, Mobi PCS was authorized as a third competitor.

The total, come September, will amount to an outlay of $132 million to the three companies, for services that benefit fewer than 3,500 homes.

What's less clear is how this money is being spent. Under a protective order governing the agreement, financial information, construction spending plans and other papers that the companies submit to the state Public Utilities Commission are not considered public documents.

This part of the accord should be amended, requiring the companies to release more of the details in open records.

Certainly, a measure of subsidy is in order to make it possible for companies to extend service to rural, under-funded communities. But when consumers are dunned so much money for a service that benefits relatively few, a comprehensive review of the situation, including greater transparency, is in order.