The telecom industry moves fast but regulation, on the other hand, not so much. There’s always been an underlying friction as a result of that gap, specifically when the conversation turns to universal service obligations (USOs) – and if they’re still doing what they were designed to do.
When USOs were first drawn up, the benchmark was a working landline. Possibly a payphone within a reasonable walking distance. But the world has changed considerably in terms of connectivity and it’s safe to say that it no longer looks like the one those USOs were created for.
Broadband has become a necessity. It’s how you make a doctor’s appointment, apply for a job or run a side hustle. If it goes down – or wasn’t really up to scratch to start with – the knock-on effects are immediately felt.
Regulators are aware of this fact and while some are trying to adapt, others are falling a behind. Updating a framework that has been around for decades is proving to be slow, challenging work. So we asked a few industry experts: are today’s USOs keeping pace?
Our Experts
- Asif Alam: RF and Antenna Systems Manager
- Jordon Roach-Dunleavy: Founder of Got The Bill
- Carlos Correa: Chief Operations Officer at Ringy
- Mohamed Idrissi: Chief Technology Officer at 5GWorldPro
- Shelli Brunswick: Founder & CEO of SB Global LLC
Asif Alam, RF and Antenna Systems Manager
“Here is the simplest way to understand it. Universal service frameworks were largely built around telephone service, and many still rely on funding mechanisms designed for legacy telecom markets. Meanwhile, the service people depend on is broadband, delivered by fibre, fixed wireless, and modern low-Earth-orbit broadband constellations that did not exist when the rules were written. Regulators are asking a fading technology to pay for the future.
Engineers keep changing what is possible. A rooftop radio now delivers gigabit speeds, and a satellite 550 kilometres up can serve a farm no cable will reach. The obligation should follow the need, not the technology. That means funding broadband from the broadband economy, and setting speed targets that rise as fast as the networks do.
The promise of universal service is still right. The machinery behind it needs to catch up.”
Jordon Roach-Dunleavy, Founder of Got The Bill
“The honest answer is no, and the UK’s broadband USO is the proof. Since March 2020, households have had a legal right to just 10Mbps download and 1Mbps upload. Five years later that figure has not moved, while the market routinely sells gigabit connections and an average family streams, works and games on speeds ten times the legal minimum.
The government opened a review of the USO in October 2023, and the outcome is still pending. That is the definition of not keeping pace: an obligation that was arguably outdated the day it launched has stood still ever since.
Australia offers the contrast. Its universal service framework is being redesigned around how people actually connect, extending obligations beyond fixed lines to outdoor mobile coverage delivered by satellite. Meanwhile the UK is retiring the copper phone network in January 2027, switching off the very infrastructure its universal service thinking was built on, without updating the obligation that sits on top of it.
Universal service should be a moving target pegged to real usage and reviewed on a fixed schedule, not a number set once a decade. Regulators are not keeping pace because the framework never required them to.”
Carlos Correa, Chief Operations Officer at Ringy
“Most regulators tend to fall behind on the universal service obligation because they currently see the access problem as purely infrastructure and not systemic affordability. Competition in mobile voice has driven prices down, but broadband remains expensive for low-income customers.
And thus the regulatory framework needs to evolve to also require structured social tariffs, like requiring broadband to cost no more than 0.6% of median disposable income. It is widely known in the industry that the slow adoption of broadband and the low digital literacy rate are major inhibitors to widespread adoption. And that the federal programs to support some monthly benefit are paltry relative to the problem.
But it would make a lot of sense to start including digital literacy as part of the universal service obligation, and take steps to set up funds to support inclusion programs. Similarly, from an operational perspective, I think wholesale markup schemes need to be targeted first before retail affordability. They provide regulators with a way to set low entry prices at broadband retail, but have an effective overall higher rate at wholesale. But universal service policies should address both issues.”
Mohamed Idrissi, Chief Technology Officer at 5GWorldPro
“Regulators are keeping pace with the letter of universal service obligations. They are not keeping pace with the economics behind them.
Most USO frameworks still define coverage as a percentage of population served, verified by drive tests and operator declarations. That was a reasonable proxy when the only question was whether a mast existed. It says very little about whether a household can afford a usable connection, or whether the 4G signal shown on the map collapses under contention at 8pm.
The bigger gap is funding. Universal service funds in many markets accumulate levies faster than they disburse them, and the disbursement rules were written for tower builds. Meanwhile the coverage problem is increasingly being solved by things those rules never contemplated: direct-to-device satellite, national roaming, fixed wireless access.
Having worked on national roaming and satellite regulatory dossiers with a national authority, my experience is that the obstacle is rarely resistance. It is that no category exists in the existing framework for what is being proposed.
The regulators who move fastest will be the ones who redefine the obligation as an outcome, measured on throughput, affordability and household-level availability, and let operators meet it with whatever technology clears the bar.”
Shelli Brunswick, Founder & CEO of SB Global LLC
“Telecom regulators are advancing universal service, but too many frameworks still measure yesterday’s problem: whether infrastructure reaches a location. The more consequential question is whether connectivity enables people to participate in society.
Across six continents, I have seen that being “covered” does not mean being connected. Affordability, reliability, speed, digital skills, access to suitable devices, and resilience determine whether access translates into opportunity. Regulators must therefore move from counting infrastructure deployed to evaluating outcomes achieved.
A Space Mindset offers a perspective: view connectivity as an interconnected system, anticipate needs beyond today’s horizon, and combine technologies rather than defaulting to legacy models. Technology-neutral regulation should allow fibre, mobile, satellite, and emerging solutions to complement one another, especially in rural, remote, and underserved communities. It should establish performance standards, transparent subsidy accountability, and regular reviews as technology and public needs evolve.
The greatest risk is not simply that regulation will trail innovation. It is that outdated assumptions will leave people behind. Universal service succeeds only when connectivity is affordable, dependable, resilient, inclusive, and useful—turning access into education, healthcare, entrepreneurship, emergency preparedness, and opportunity.”
