Recent FCC Moves Raise Concerns Among Lifeline Advocates

Refocus FCC efforts on shoring up Lifeline affordability and reaching out to all eligible consumers instead of setting up new barriers, stakeholders recommended in interviews this week and last. The FCC last week 3-2 denied a pause on a $2 monthly decrease in support for voice-only, while raising by 50 percent a monthly minimum for broadband to 3 GB (see 1911200015). The previous week, the agency issued a 3-2 order that would curb fraud and abuse, and a Further NPRM asks whether to ban free handsets with new signups (see 1911140064).

The broadband requirements going into effect Sunday could make it more difficult to provide no-cost plans, said Phillip Berenbroick, Public Knowledge policy director. "If providers are going to drop out or raise prices, it's worth watching, and the commission should revisit it." If confronted with new evidence of unanticipated changes in the market that hurt consumers, Berenbroick hopes the FCC takes quick action.

Cheryl Leanza, United Church of Christ policy adviser, said the civil rights community supported a temporary pause in the minimum service standards increases until stakeholders could review a market study due in 2021. "The FCC's job is to find what's in the public interest to ensure low-income people have access to communications, and there's no indication the FCC took that into account," she said, Asked whether compromising on a 3 GB data minimum instead of the original boost to 8.75 is better than nothing, she answered, "I'm not sure why nothing is the other option."

Raising the Lifeline broadband minimum standards as consumer usage changes makes sense, said Jeffrey Westling, technology and innovation policy resident fellow at R Street Institute. "We want to have Lifeline dollars go to the services people want to use." He's keeping a close eye on the phase-down in support for voice-only services because many Lifeline users still rely on voice communications, "and we shouldn't discount those people," he said. "I don't want to leave people behind."

NTCA petitioned yearly since 2017 on pausing required updates in minimum broadband speeds for Lifeline, but it was never addressed, said Mike Romano, senior vice president-industry affairs and business development. An FCC spokesperson said Wednesday the NTCA petition was still pending. NTCA also wants the FCC to answer industry concerns over requiring personally identifiable information from employee representatives who access a Lifeline database, Romano said. Michael Jacobs, ITTA vice president-regulatory affairs, is disappointed with the outcome on the representative accountability database but hopes there is still some ability to influence the details. "We're still concerned about PII going into a new database" at the Universal Service Administrative Co., he said.

Lifeline fans back free handsets. "No-cost products are extremely important to low-income people," Leanza said: "They're very often in a very fragile state," and may not be able to pay for telecom but need access.

Low-income consumers often don't have cash flow, checkbooks or credit cards, and sometimes not even cash on a monthly basis, said telecom/Lifeline lawyer John Heitmann of Kelley Drye. "Any time you impose a price increase, it is counter to the goal of affordability." He said there's an advantage to giving someone a phone in person so providers' agents have the opportunity to train them how to use the device.

Gigi Sohn of Georgetown Law Institute for Technology & Policy said because the Lifeline program doesn't devote funds to pay for free handsets, the FCC shouldn't weigh in on whether providers or resellers offer the devices to new enrollees.

Free handsets are "an important way to bring low-information enrollees into the 21st century," said Andrew Schwartzman, Benton Institute senior counselor. "They benefit through connectivity." Schwartzman thinks FCC Chairman Ajit Pai looks at the Lifeline program as a burden rather than something that can help everybody, and added overregulating the sales process by banning sales commissions "is a very un-Republican thing."

Free State Foundation President Randolph May said he has supported the Lifeline program for two decades and supports free market-oriented policy in general at the FCC. "Sometimes people wonder whether those two principles are reconcilable," he said: Lifeline's "a safety net program akin to food stamps." May said he backs the compromise on the broadband minimum standards and generally supported the industry petition against the earlier jump in the minimum data allotments: "Sometimes there are compromises that make sense." May favors curbing waste, fraud and abuse in the Lifeline program to the extent possible because without such efforts, public support could diminish, "and I don't want that to happen."