A convicted felon in Alaska receives roughly $1 million annually in federal subsidies to operate an internet service provider delivering obsolete technology to rural customers. Roger Shoffstall, the operator, collects money through the Universal Service Fund, a federal program designed to expand broadband access to underserved areas. Taxpayers unknowingly finance the arrangement.

Shoffstall's company delivers dial-up and low-speed DSL service in remote Alaska communities where faster alternatives remain unavailable. The Universal Service Fund, administered by the FCC, distributes billions yearly to carriers serving unprofitable regions. The program targets genuine access gaps, but oversight gaps allow operators like Shoffstall to collect subsidies while offering technology that barely qualifies as modern broadband.

The situation exposes a structural problem in rural broadband policy. Federal money flows to incumbents operating legacy networks rather than spurring investment in competitive, faster infrastructure. Customers in these areas pay standard rates for substandard service while subsidies prop up the status quo. Shoffstall's criminal history raises additional concerns about who receives public funds.

For rural Alaskans, this means limited options. They cannot easily switch providers since competitors lack incentive to enter markets already served by federally funded operators. Rural residents effectively subsidize their own inadequate service through tax dollars funding companies with no pressure to upgrade.

For property buyers and renters in these remote communities, poor internet becomes a permanent disadvantage. Property values suffer when broadband lags national standards. Young families and remote workers avoid areas served only by obsolete networks, constraining local economic growth.

Sellers in rural Alaska face depressed demand from buyers requiring reliable connectivity. Landlords struggle attracting tenants unwilling to accept outdated internet as a permanent fixture.

The case highlights how subsidy programs can entrench mediocrity rather than solving it. Better policy would condition