The fact that 42 million Americans living without high-speed Internet should shock our conscience in the digital age. Millions of adults cannot access distance learning, learn about and apply for jobs, or conduct telehealth visits with their doctors. Worse yet, studies show that lack of broadband can perpetuate the cycle of poverty.

This is why Congress included a historic $65 billion investment in broadband infrastructure in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. Part of this investment went to the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The ACP provided low-income families and veterans with a $30 voucher to purchase broadband services and $100 to purchase computers or tablets.

And it worked! The ACP covered more than 22 million households, and about 20 percent of its enrollees did not have access to broadband before the implementation of the ACP.

There’s only one problem: the FCC, on June 1stlacked funds to keep the ACP operating. This leaves millions of low-income families and veterans in the lurch if they want to continue using its services.

To revive the ACP, Congress will need to reauthorize it. But that doesn’t seem likely.

Unfortunately, it comes down to details of the reforms. Some members contest the rather broad eligibility of ACP countries, which could lead to unnecessary spending. Some say there is a lot of abuse of the program given the self-certification model used by some providers.

Here’s the good news: Both sides appear willing to compromise. The bad news is that the conversations have completely stalled.

The reality is that if Congress fails to reach consensus on the ACP to address the issue of affordability, it will only put more pressure on existing programs like Lifeline, which is funded by the FCC Universal Service Fund (USF).

But USF’s programs are far from perfect.

USF is a general fund that funds four grant programs: Lifeline, the High-Cost Program, the Rural Health Fund, and E-Rate. Lifeline and E-Rate are the closest to PCA. Lifeline provides subsidized phone and broadband services to people on low incomes. E-Rate offers discounts on telecommunications, Internet access and internal connections to schools and libraries.

Even though these programs seem obscure, you are probably already unknowingly interacting with USF because you, the consumer, are funding it when you pay your monthly phone bill as an extra for your service. Since 2002, the tax imposed on you has increased steadily, from 6.8 percent to an astonishing 34.4 percent, thereby increasing the cost of your telephone service. Unfortunately, this figure will only increase.

Not only is the cost to the consumer a concern, but USF’s programs are notoriously ineffective in bridging the digital divide. Keep in mind that Lifeline has been around since 1985 and has yet to make the same improvements in broadband adoption that ACP accomplished in just three years. And USF compliance costs are quite high for companies wishing to participate.

Fortunately, a bipartisan group of senators is studying USF reform and, better yet, there are solutions both parties can agree on. The first is for Congress to simply incorporate ACP into the USF contribution regime and have it replace less effective programs with similar mandates, like Lifeline.

Alternatively, to increase the effectiveness of the USF, Congress can also remove unnecessary and onerous fund hurdles that only a few carriers can overcome, such as qualifying telecommunications carrier designation, to increase carrier participation and giving low-income consumers more choice in suppliers. Frankly, dropping the Eligible Telecommunications Carrier designation for other USF programs, such as the High Cost Program, would be an easy way to reduce compliance costs and increase participation from high cost beneficiaries. This would level the playing field and reduce the unnecessary paperwork that often accompanies such a designation.

More importantly, Congress should also fix the FCC’s broken contribution mechanism to the USF. Instead of unfairly placing the burden on families, veterans, working adults, and seniors, Congress should place the burden on the businesses that benefit the most from broadband services. It is these companies that should pay, not taxpayers. Congress could close loopholes (such as the self-provisioning exemption) that large telecom providers exploit to avoid contributing and ensure that the big tech companies that profit immensely from universal service pay their fair share.

The issue of affordable broadband is not going away anytime soon. Even if a standalone ACP were to go the way of the dodo, the only way to not lose the gains the program has made in closing the digital divide is for Congress to reform the USF.

Joel Thayer is president of the Digital Progress Institute and an attorney based in Washington, DC.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.