The Shift We Haven’t Made Yet

For decades, the Universal Service Fund (USF) has helped connect rural America. It has subsidized networks, supported schools and libraries, and made access possible in places where markets alone would not invest.

But today, we are facing a new reality.

The question is no longer: Can we connect communities?

It is: Can communities use, sustain, and grow what we built?

That shift—from access to capacity—is where our policy framework begins to break down.

A Misaligned System

The Universal Service Fund was designed in a different era, when “service” meant voice lines and basic connectivity.

Today:

  • Broadband is essential infrastructure.
  • Digital participation drives education, healthcare, and economic development.
  • Communities must actively manage, use, and evolve these systems.

Yet USF remains anchored to a legacy model—administered through a regulatory lens rather than a community infrastructure lens.

This creates a gap:

We fund networks as if they are endpoints,
when in reality, they are starting points.

Why USDA Changes the Frame

If we step back and ask a simple question:

Where does the federal government already sustain infrastructure that markets won’t?

The answer is clear: USDA Rural Development.

USDA has spent decades supporting:

  • Electric cooperatives
  • Water systems
  • Rural utilities
  • Community facilities

It operates with a different philosophy:

  • Long-term stewardship over short-term subsidy
  • Local ownership over centralized control
  • Financing models that recognize non-market viability

In other words, USDA already treats infrastructure as a community system, not just a regulated service.

That makes it a natural home for a modernized universal service framework.

But Infrastructure Alone Is Not Enough

If we moved USF into USDA tomorrow, we would still fall short—because the real gap is not just funding.

It is capacity.

Across rural communities—including those we work with in the Eastern Upper Peninsula—we see the same pattern:

  • Networks are built
  • Service becomes available
  • Adoption lags
  • Outcomes remain uneven

The missing layer is not technical.

It is human.

The Role of Community Education

Universal service must evolve to include more than access and affordability.

It must include:

  • Digital literacy
  • Workforce readiness
  • Local leadership development
  • Cybersecurity and responsible use
  • Community problem-solving capacity

These are not “add-ons.”

They are the difference between:

  • A network that exists
  • And a network that matters

Without this layer, infrastructure investments plateau.

With it, they compound.

Why MSU Extension Matters

This is where Cooperative Extension—specifically MSU Extension in Michigan—becomes essential.

Extension already provides:

  • A trusted, place-based presence in communities
  • Education grounded in local needs
  • Programs that connect research to practice
  • Long-term relationships that outlast grant cycles

Programs like 4-H Tech Changemakers demonstrate what this looks like in practice:

  • Youth becoming digital leaders
  • Communities building intergenerational capacity
  • Technology being applied to real local challenges

Extension does something federal programs alone cannot:

It turns infrastructure into capability.

A Three-Layer Model for Universal Service

To move forward, we need to integrate three layers that are currently fragmented.

Layer 1 — Infrastructure (USDA)

  • Broadband deployment
  • Long-term financing
  • Utility-scale stewardship

Layer 2 — Sustainability (USF)

  • Affordability support
  • Operational viability
  • Anchor institutions (schools, libraries, healthcare)

Layer 3 — Capacity (Extension)

  • Community education
  • Workforce development
  • Digital navigation and support
  • Local leadership pipelines

Most policy stops at Layers 1 and 2.

But outcomes happen in Layer 3.

From Projects to Systems

What we are really proposing is not a program change—it is a system change.

Instead of:

Build → Subsidize → Move on

We need:

Build → Sustain → Educate → Adapt → Grow

This is the difference between:

  • Infrastructure as a project
  • Infrastructure as a living system

A Place-Based Opportunity

In regions like the Eastern Upper Peninsula, we see what’s possible when these layers begin to align:

  • Broadband networks coordinated through regional collaboration
  • Schools, libraries, and institutions acting as anchors
  • Community education programs building local capacity
  • Youth and residents participating in the digital economy

This is not theoretical.

It is already emerging.

What is missing is a federal framework that recognizes and supports it as a system.

A New Definition of Universal Service

Universal service was once defined as access to a network.

Today, it must be defined as:

The ability of a community to fully participate in, benefit from, and shape the digital world.

That requires:

  • Infrastructure
  • Affordability
  • And capacity

USDA can provide the backbone.
USF can provide sustainment.
Extension can provide the human layer that makes it all work.

The Compass Moving Forward

If we want to build systems that last, we need to align policy with reality.

Connectivity is not the destination.

It is the beginning.

And universal service must evolve to meet that truth.