That's a separate issue though, and something I am quite strongly against. The article was about "discriminating" specifically against the poor, and unless you'd like to argue that their collusion is willfully and knowingly done specifically to discriminate against poor people, I don't think it applies.
I agree that we shouldn't be too quick to label every potentially unfair situation as discrimination. But part of the original intent (Ajit Pai notwithstanding) of the USF was to bring quality service to rural and low income areas, so AT&T should be careful to fulfill their obligation and, ideally, the government should hold them to it.
