"To fully close the digital divide we must address the affordability of broadband services for lower-income households," Matsui said in a statement. "Although these households may have some options for broadband access, they are underserved if none of these options are affordable."

In a widely cited study released in June, the Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that among Americans who do not currently subscribe to high-speed Internet service, 19 percent said that price was the primary deterrent.

Of course, the USF is only available to lower-income Americans, so Matsui's bill wouldn't help the moderate to well-heeled households who still can't see the value to justify the expense.

Nonetheless, USF reform is long overdue. The issue has been kicking around the FCC for years, but a crowded agenda and shortage of political will has kept it on the back burner.

Matsui's bill is an expansion of the existing program to deliver so-called "lifeline" phone service to lower-income Americans. With nearly one in five U.S. households no longer subscribing to landline service, it could well be that it's time to divert some of that funding to broadband, rather than expanding the overall pie as Matsui's bill seems to endorse.

That would be a nifty, if improbable, political compromise that could give this bill a chance to move. That would entail an exhaustive study of the USF as it's currently implemented to trim the fat from the program. Otherwise, the political dilemma becomes one of either cutting benefits the government already offers or expanding the deficit further still. If that's the choice, in this political climate, I'm betting the bill doesn't move (and certainly not before February, when the FCC is due to deliver its broadband strategy to Congress).

Still, Matsui has the right idea.