FCC Lifeline Broadband Plans Draw Support, State/Local Concerns, Tribal Requests
The FCC’s push to extend Lifeline USF support to broadband is receiving support in early comments, but some state and local officials are concerned it could come at the expense of traditional phone services. Some Native American groups also have urged the commission to reach out more directly to tribal authorities to address their needs. Responding to several requests for more time, the FCC extended its Aug. 17 deadline to Aug. 31 for commenting on its NPRM to revamp its Lifeline USF support for low-income consumers (see 1508050032), but some parties filed comments in docket 11-42 by the original deadline.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The Alliance for Excellent Education said it “strongly supports” the FCC’s efforts to expand and modernize Lifeline to help “narrow the homework gap” affecting “low-income families and traditional minorities” that lack access to technology needed to do school assignments. Expanding Lifeline support to broadband is only part of the solution, but it “will improve the lives of millions of low-income Americans and provide all students an equal opportunity to have access to important digital content that can personalize and improve learning and insure they graduate from high school prepared with the necessary college- and career-ready skills and knowledge to be successful in school, work, and life,” the group said.
The Aurora (Illinois) Housing Authority also said it “strongly supports” Lifeline broadband expansion, which it said “would provide a considerable additional resource” to low-income residents it serves and across the country. “Limiting access to this technology essentially incarcerates entire families to poverty,” the AHA said. Senior Service America has “great interest” in the FCC’s Lifeline modernization efforts. “We urge the FCC to strengthen links between Lifeline’s existing eligibility determination system and other major federal means-tested assistance programs as an efficient and effective way to reach a significant proportion of the millions of older Americans who remain offline,” the group said.
A number of state and local officials expressed varying degrees of enthusiasm for the FCC’s general Lifeline reform efforts, but voiced concerns about some of its specific proposals, in letters that appeared to work off the same template. Linda Hudson, mayor of Fort Pierce, Florida, said “several aspects of this regulatory scheme” would “adversely affect qualified low-income individuals and households, and further broaden the digital divide.” She and others said they were concerned a proposed FCC rule would force Lifeline subscribers to choose between spending their monthly subsidy on cellphone service or broadband.
They also said the commission’s current $9.25/month Lifeline subsidy isn't enough to buy broadband that would “solve any real communications issues” or voice/broadband bundles. Nevada state Sen. Joyce Woodhouse (D) said the subsidy would “not have a material impact on Lifeline adoption by low-income households” as many customers can’t afford to make extra payments to get additional services. “As a result, free wireless Lifeline will be adversely affected,” she said. State and local officials also voiced concerns about FCC suggestions to transfer the duties to verify low-income eligibility from Lifeline telecom providers to a third party or a government entity, and about the possibility of providing benefits through vouchers.
Public Knowledge urged the FCC to take care in establishing any “budget” for the Lifeline program, which provides about $1.6 billion in support (down from $2.1 billion a few years ago). The commission “should recognize that the program is countercyclical to economic conditions and have the flexibility to meet increasing demand for Lifeline support when the need arises,” the group said in an ex parte filing.
Some tribal groups also weighed in, seeking greater consultation and outreach. The Sioux Tribes of the Upper Great Plains said the commission’s USF programs weren't working in Indian country. “Rather than address specific needs of Tribes, the USF programs simply funnel subsidies to large carriers who provide service to Tribes on a monopoly or duopoly basis, and who have a demonstrated record of providing grossly inadequate service,” they said. “The Tribes recommend that the Commission consult directly with the Sioux Tribes of the Upper Great Plains, to provide federal assistance that is target to their unique needs.”
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and Standing Rock Telecommunications Inc. said they support Lifeline coverage for broadband but urged the FCC “to expand its outreach to Indian country and to provide greater opportunities for more comprehensive consultation with the Tribes with respect to the issues addressed in the Second [NPRM], and with respect to Universal Service and broadband more generally.” The Leech Lake Telecommunications Co.of Minnesota said it supports consultation with tribes on questions as to how their lands are defined and also supports a "minimum service standard for broadband taking into consideration lack of affordable broadband in tribal lands."