What started off as a relatively quiet internal industry debate over how “light regulation” should be applied to voice over IP became full-fledged public discourse last week that likely will reshape the Universal Service Fund. The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page article on the future of the fund based on the example of a Vonage customer in North Dakota who saw his local voice bill dive from $165 to $65. Set in terms those outside the industry can understand, the debate is being shaped as a battle between rural carriers and supporters who view the USF as vital to the survival of basic service in rural America, and a coalition that sees the set-up as a vestige of the monopoly era with no place in the IP future of telecom. Missing — and sorely needed — is a strong public voice explaining in layman's terms how the USF factors into the nation's telecom infrastructure. At the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association meeting early this month, rural telco members passed a resolution “to aim advocacy efforts at passing laws and regulations that allow members to receive cost recovery for investments,” according to a statement. In case you've been asleep for the past four years, the political winds in Washington are not blowing in the direction of protecting small companies. “Cost recovery” is easily spun as “corporate subsidies for those who don't want to compete in the real world.” Instead of framing the debate in terms of cost recovery for rural incumbents, supporters should show that universal service indeed has a role in bridging the broadband gap.