Many Americans may be unaware that deep in communications policy lies an obscure, complex set of federal subsidy programs, collectively referred to as the Universal Service Fund. By almost all accounts, USF is due for some serious corrections.

Unfortunately, rather than addressing reform holistically and reassessing what USF programs are paying for, some advocates have focused myopically on changing who pays for them. Their proposed solution? Turning high-tech companies into the piggy bank for subsidizing broadband networks and social program expansion. Having had a unique perch over the years to analyze, critique, and amend USF, I can put it as simply as possible: Standalone efforts to “ tax Big Tech” in the name of USF reform are deeply flawed and should not be supported.

First, the soaking-the-tech crowd seems to block out that their vision would assuredly lead to higher consumer costs in one form or another. History has taught us time and time again that new regulatory costs and taxation burdens will not merely be absorbed by those forced to pay but get passed on to consumers. Hard-working people, especially in this difficult economy, will see prices rise for online features many deem as vital to modern life.

Broadband is a wonderful technology, but absent the rich content — e.g., websites and apps — ultimately driving popularity and reliance, it would be like a library without books. Forcing consumers to eat price increases or to start paying for free apps because of government policy will undermine usage and adoption of and access to broadband in all kinds of unpredictable ways. How does this feed the populist agenda?

Even if costs don’t directly go up because of such a change, these costs will get funneled to consumers indirectly. There are no parts of the internet ecosystem, not even online advertising, in which raising taxes would be victimless.

Consider that “edge” companies currently make enormous investments into the functionality and performance of the overall internet experience. For example, a 2022 Analysys Mason report on tech’s network investment found that edge companies invested almost $1 trillion into the networks over the last decade. Why would these same companies not decrease these efforts or stop them altogether in response to USF burdens?

Redirecting these companies’ resources to pay for federal USF programs will end the reoccurring pattern of investment, network enhancement, consumer happiness, and financial rewards repeated over a gazillion times that has guided internet economics for almost four-plus decades. It would also disrupt efforts to push computing to the network’s edge, thereby bringing content closer to the customer, reducing latency, and improving the online experience.

Further, expanding the USF tax base does nothing to control spending and will likely even make matters worse. Taxing and spending in this case are interrelated: In the short-term, the tax rate paid by consumers via their phone bills may seem like a decrease as the USF payer base is expanded, but inevitably, the newly expanded revenue base means the consumer hit will be applied to even more services on a wide array of devices. Expanding the revenue base, and in turn, the amount of money for the Federal Communications Commission to play around with, would also completely undermine the FCC’s current incentives to keep USF spending in check. Throwing edge providers into the USF mix must be done with the full knowledge that USF spending could possibly double or triple over the next decade.

Moreover, if this effort is truly about imposing taxes on those companies that generate significant broadband network traffic, then its focus on tech companies is completely arbitrary. Almost every company uses broadband to deliver their services to consumers, and thus earn profits. Shouldn’t the financial services, healthcare, commercial enterprise industries, and many more be concerned that they are next? Why is the U.S. government’s traffic exempt? To argue that certain tech companies are the only beneficiaries worthy of being taxed under this premise is plainly wrong and discriminatory. Proponents should have the guts to admit that they have no substantive reasons to include some sectors and exclude others.

Punishing companies such as cloud providers would also leave a major void and allow other companies, such as those from China, to gain a stronger market position and essentially make European networks more vulnerable. In addition to being extremely harmful, this would be highly ironic since the U.S. is spending billions of federal dollars through efforts such as “Rip and Replace” to plug such deficiencies.

It doesn’t take an expert to see that USF is fiscally and structurally unhealthy. But pushing a new standalone tax on the U.S. technology industry under the guise of reform will not fix the fund’s problems. Instead, it would cost consumers and allow our trading partners to fleece American innovation.

Michael O’Rielly served as a commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission under President Donald Trump.