Industry Giants, Consumer Groups Back Lifeline Changes; FCC Targets March 31 Action
Broadband providers and consumer advocates jointly backed modernizing Lifeline USF support for low-income subscribers. Almost two dozen major telcos, cable companies, consumer groups and public-interest organizations signed a letter to commissioners Tuesday saying it was time to use Lifeline subsidies to make broadband more affordable for low-income persons and change the way the program is administered regarding consumer eligibility verification and industry participation. An informed source said the FCC continues to target its March 31 meeting for adopting a Lifeline order, as expected (see 1602180055).
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 letter reflects a virtual consensus that Lifeline should subsidize broadband service, said a statement from Public Knowledge, one of the signatories. "There is near unanimous agreement among broadband providers, public interest advocates, and public officials from all levels of government that the FCC should modernize the Lifeline program to make broadband Internet access more affordable for low-income Americans struggling to get online,” said PK counsel Phillip Berenbroick.
The other signatories of the letter were: Access Humboldt; American Library Association; AT&T; Benton Foundation; Center for Media Justice; Center for Rural Strategies; CenturyLink; Comcast; Common Cause; Common Sense Kids Action; Connected Nation, Inc.; Cox Communications; EveryoneOn; Frontier Communications; Media Mobilizing Project; Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council; National Digital Inclusion Alliance; National Hispanic Media Coalition; OCA -- Asian Pacific American Advocates; Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition; The Greenlining Institute; and Verizon.
It's important to make “critical changes” to Lifeline’s administration, the letter said. “Eligibility and recertification functions currently performed by service providers must be promptly and completely handed over to a third-party verifier/administrator. This step will both strengthen the program and reduce the costs to providers of serving the Lifeline market.”
The stakeholders said the FCC should ease broader provider participation in offering Lifeline-supported broadband. “The Commission should centralize and streamline the process of authorizing providers to offer Lifeline-supported broadband Internet access service. The Commission has the legal authority to make this change and the policy rationale for doing so is compelling,” the letter said.
“To fulfill the vital purpose of bringing broadband to those who otherwise cannot afford it, we want both the broadest participation possible and the flexibility to create innovative solutions,” the letter said. “This requires a uniform national policy that, while preventing fraud and abuse, encourages maximum participation and encourages innovative ways to provide affordable broadband. Unfortunately, creating such a broadband Lifeline program is incompatible with the current process of approving authorized providers.”
Free State Foundation President Randolph May said he continues to support extending Lifeline to broadband, though he didn’t necessarily subscribe to all aspects of the letter. “I am, of course, generally a proponent of free markets, but that is not inconsistent with supporting ‘safety net’ programs like Lifeline that are properly constructed and circumscribed,” he emailed us. “The FCC must be serious about implementing the program in a way that takes into account fiscal constraints and the need to prevent fraud and abuse, so that the program is sustainable in serving those low-income persons truly in need.”
Lifeline reform is in “the home stretch,” said Andrew Schwartzman, senior counselor at the Georgetown Institute for Public Representation, who called a March 31 vote likely. “While policymakers are, quite properly, devoting their attention to the mechanics of modernizing and managing the Lifeline program, it is easy to lose sight of broad goals which underlie the century-old, national policy of promoting universal telecommunications service and, indeed, why there is a Lifeline program at all,” he said in an email. “This matters, because a good bit of opposition to the Lifeline program is rooted in the misperception that Lifeline is simply a ‘welfare program’ designed to help low-income consumers. Lifeline does, indeed, provide critical assistance to people who need it, but it is much more; simply stated, expanding access to telecommunications networks benefits everyone.”