Lifeline Reconsideration Petitions Draw Wide-Ranging Comments From Parties

TracFone petitioned the FCC to reconsider targeting voice-only service for elimination by Dec. 1, 2021, after a phasedown and further review. The largest recipient of Lifeline funding cited supportive arguments in petitions filed by NTCA and WTA, the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA) and other Lifeline eligible telecom carriers ("Joint ETCs"). TracFone's comments focused on "the importance of maintaining standalone Lifeline voice service as an option so that low-income consumers can meet their communications needs, including access to emergency and other critical services," and "the need for minimum mobile broadband data requirements that will provide low-income consumers with affordable Internet access."

GVNW Consulting and Sacred Wind Communications also backed FCC reconsideration of its planned phaseout of Lifeline voice-only support. GVNW, which consults on rural telco issues, cited NTCA/WTA arguments that the phaseout would counter the "goal of increasing the affordability of communications connectivity" and particularly would affect RLEC low-income customers because of regulatory constraints. Sacred Wind, which serves consumers on and near the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico, said it shared NASUCA concerns and urged the FCC to maintain current Lifeline support for voice-only service. It suggested its elderly voice-only Navajo customers wouldn't be able to afford broadband/voice bundles that will still receive Lifeline support.

NASUCA opposed various USTelecom petition requests, including to (1) delay the Dec. 1 implementation of the broadband Lifeline program to December of 2017, (2) "excuse high-cost carriers from broadband Lifeline obligations" and eliminate a duty that the last Lifeline provider in a census block continue offering Lifeline service, (3) eliminate a requirement that providers not make material changes to Lifeline plans for the first year a subscriber has service, and (4) eliminate voice-only accounting. NASUCA also opposed CTIA resistance to setting standards based on usage by 70 percent of customers and the Joint ETC request for a streamlined procedure for voice-only Lifeline ETCs.

The Greenlining Institute and other consumer-advocacy groups opposed the petitions of CTIA, General Communication, Joint ETCs, NTCA/WTA, TracFone and USTelecom. Their opposition addressed two categories of industry pleas: "(1) requests for changes that would disrupt the ability of consumers to participate in Lifeline for the convenience of carriers, and (2) requests for changes that would weaken or eliminate service quality standards, leaving program participants with sub-par, 'second-class' service. These changes would be detrimental to all consumers, particularly consumers from communities of color and consumers with disabilities."

The Joint ETCs said they opposed the petitions of USTelecom and NTCA/WTA for FCC reconsideration of its one-year "broadband benefit port freeze." The group, which includes Lifeline Connects Coalition members and others, disputed arguments the port freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act because a Further NPRM "described the subject and issues" and "because those that oppose it now had actual notice of the proposal and had every opportunity to oppose it during the rulemaking proceeding, but failed to do so." The "broadband benefit port freeze is an essential premise to meeting the new broadband minimum service standards and broadband-capable handset requirements that will improve Lifeline offerings," said the Joint ETCs. They also opposed "TracFone’s call -- yet again -- for a ban on in-person handset distribution and incentive-based compensation."

Q Link Wireless backed the Joint ETC petition to allow ETCs to meet broadband and voice service standards when they offer a plan that permits customers to utilize the services for the full amount while giving customers "the option to consume less than the full amount of voice or data, and to substitute voice for data usage or data for voice usage." That reading "better respects consumer choice" and doesn't force low-income consumers to buy voice or data capacity they won't use, Q Link commented.

NCTA opposed the Pennsylvania PUC petition to the extent it would allow states "to impose operational requirements on federally designated Lifeline Broadband Providers." The request would undo the streamlining benefits of having a single, federal LBP process, the cable group said. "Although the Pennsylvania PUC characterizes its petition as a request for 'clarification,' the Petition is in fact seeking to dismantle key elements of the LBP framework," commented USTelecom. NCTA also asked the FCC to reconsider requiring ETCs to recertify Lifeline customers on a rolling basis, and instead to give them the option of continuing to recertify subscribers annually. USTelecom also opposed a NASUCA request to impose certain ETC duties relating to backup power.

Sprint said it supported clarifying the state LBP role, given the potential for bifurcated regulation. "In the event that a Lifeline service provider is suspected of a regulatory violation or lapse, it is in the interest of all parties involved to have clear jurisdictional ground rules. It makes little sense to have parallel and possibly conflicting state and federal enforcement tracks for the same violation," it commented. Sprint said it also backed reconsidering three other FCC decisions: "the average usage formula to be used to determine minimum mobile broadband usage allotments for 2019 and beyond; the halving of the inactivity period which leads to de-enrollment; and the rolling recertification rule."