FCC Seeks Responses to Lifeline Order Petitions for Reconsideration

Three of the petitions asked the FCC to eliminate the requirement that eligible telecom carriers verify every 90 days the residency of customers at temporary addresses. USTelecom said the rule was superfluous for wireline Lifeline subscribers because they cannot move their service to a new address without discontinuing service at the first address (http://xrl.us/bm4myq). If a customer establishes service at a new address, “the obligation that ‘all ETCs query the database to check to see if a prospective subscriber is already receiving service from another ETC at a residential address’ is sufficient to guard against duplicates,” it said, quoting another requirement in the Lifeline order. Sprint Nextel (http://xrl.us/bm4myu) and General Communications Inc. said the temporary address rules should be removed because they were unsupported by the record and unreasonably burdensome. GCI also took issue with the requirement that, for ETCs receiving more than $5 million in Lifeline support, they each commission third-party biennial audits of their “overall compliance” with Lifeline regulations, calling it “extremely expensive overkill” (http://xrl.us/bm4mys).

In seeking emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget, the FCC removed the temporary address and biennial audit provisions from their request last week (CD April 17 p2). An FCC spokesman has said it will resubmit that information collection request later when it files for non-emergency three-year Paperwork Reduction Act approval.

USTelecom additionally asked that the FCC no longer require provision of toll limitation service, and eliminate the requirement to obtain recertification forms in states where the state performs the recertification function. The association also asked the commission to clarify several aspects of the order, such as how ETCs can comply where certain mandates apply to states or other parties under the ETCs’ control. The order requires states with automatic enrollment programs to modify those programs as necessary to comply with the new rules. “This process is largely outside of an ETC’s control, and it would be unreasonable to hold ETCs accountable for state action or inaction,” USTelecom said.

T-Mobile USA said the order’s “one-per-household requirement,” which limits participants to only one Lifeline service per household, is “reversible error on appeal” (http://xrl.us/bm4myo). The order failed to address significant arguments in the record that the rule violates the universal service principles of “reasonable comparability and technological neutrality,” and should be reconsidered, the carrier said. TracFone said mandatory documentation of program-based eligibility shouldn’t be required until access to eligibility databases is ubiquitously available, and asked that receipt of Lifeline support not be based upon activation of a handset provided to a Lifeline customer (http://xrl.us/bm4mzz). The rule “was not even proposed in the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking,” and will “complicate and unnecessarily delay delivery of Lifeline-supported services to consumers, and will do nothing to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of USF resources,” TracFone said.

The Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia (http://xrl.us/bm2k5d) asked for clarification that state agencies verifying customer eligibility in jurisdictions where there’s no authority over wireless carriers aren’t obligated to perform duties for wireless ETCs. The American Public Communications Council asked that Lifeline support be available for payphone service, because those phones “provide substantial benefits to low income consumers” (http://xrl.us/bm4mzv). Nexus Communications also filed a petition for reconsideration.