Groups Seek ACP Flexibility, Consumer Protections

Providers, local governments and advocates welcomed FCC-proposed rules for the $14.2 billion affordable connectivity program, in comments posted Thursday in docket 21-450. Some raised concerns about potential implementation challenges as the agency shifts from the $3.1 billion emergency broadband benefit program and urged the commission to allow flexibility for EBB providers and enrolled households during the transition.

Some EBB providers backed the FCC's proposal to not require such providers to submit new applications to participate in ACP, including Hughes Network Systems. If a provider must submit a new election notice, it should "be effective upon submission like other notice filings,” Hughes said. “A new ACP election notice process for EBB providers is unnecessary, but any such process should be appropriately streamlined,” ACA Connects said, which USTelecom and Google Fiber echoed. “Many consumers will simply take no action at all in response to an opt-in request, which leads to additional issues for the provider in terms of resources dedicated to repeated attempts to contact the customer,” said Altice.

Several cities raised concerns about potential implementation challenges and proposed eligibility changes. “While the word emergency is no longer in the title of the program, it would be naive to think we are in any less dire circumstance,” said Boston; Montgomery County, Maryland; Washington, D.C.; and the Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues. They asked the commission to maintain the community eligibility provision. "Refrain from making any changes in the program" unless mandated by Congress, they said, asking to delay "any changes until after the 2021-22 school year has been completed to avoid undue interruptions in service."

Include legacy and grandfathered services as eligible services, said the New York State Public Service Commission. Not doing so would result in households being "forced out of plans they otherwise have the right to participate under or would be unable to use the important support the ACP offers,” the PSC said. The National League of Cities agreed and said such services should “meet minimum standards.” Dish Network disagreed and said such plans aren't "publicly available on the same terms and conditions" and it would be "impractical to develop a workable implementation solution," which Frontier and the Competitive Carriers Association echoed. Legacy plans “should be available only if the provider chooses to make them available,” said NCTA.

Few providers offered a connected device in EBB (see 2105210049). Hawaii’s Broadband & Digital Equity Office said the FCC should allow computer "refurbishing providers" to participate to "encourage and extend the viability of computers, reduce and reuse e-waste, and enable residents to apply the device credit to refurbished computers." Allow EBB households that received a connected device to receive a second device in ACP, said the Michigan PSC: "The full benefits of the program should not be restricted by previous awards granted by other programs." Let providers partner with device manufacturers or retail outlets to boost the use of connected devices, said Public Knowledge and Common Sense Media. NATOA backed the proposal.

Require "all of the service provider’s service area within a state to be covered, rather than just a 'substantial portion' of its service area within a state," said the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Don't require that providers certify they can "promptly provide service in an area if a subscriber requests it," said Wavelength: This proposal would effectively subject ACP-supported providers to service obligations comparable to those present in the High Cost, Lifeline, and [eligible telecom carrier] contexts." The Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission disagreed but said the Universal Service Administrative Co. should “be required to consult with tribal governments before ‘locking out’ a provider” on tribal lands.

Commenters disagreed whether the infrastructure law permits credit checks on ACP enrollees. The law prohibits credit checks as a prerequisite to applying the benefit to a service offering. Allowing credit checks would “completely eviscerate the prohibition on credit checks,” said Free Press. "Unscrupulous ISPs need not apply.” Verizon disagreed, and said the FCC should “at least permit providers to use the results of credit checks to ‘determine which equipment or devices may be offered to a household.’” Participating providers shouldn’t be barred from “using information from credit bureaus for devices that are not covered by the ACP,” said AT&T.

A common complaint during EBB was the data the FCC released. Several groups asked the FCC to provide more granular details on enrollment and claims. That should include progress on enrollment and languages applicants use, said the Asian American Tech Table, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates and National Council of Asian Pacific Americans: “Sharing this data with community partners and advocates will make trouble-shooting and feedback more efficient.” Require providers to submit "periodic reports regarding the prices and relevant terms for services to which the ACP benefit is being applied," said AARP, citing concerns about potential "price discrimination and manipulation by geographic area."

Many opposed an opt-in requirement for EBB-enrolled households seeking to transfer to ACP. Requiring households to opt in “would likely lead to confusion and result in many households unknowingly and unwillingly dropping out of the ACP,” said the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, which T-Mobile echoed. It’s “fundamentally misguided, and should be rejected,” said CTIA. WTA backed an affirmative opt-out process.

Commenters overwhelmingly welcomed that the FCC may use ACP funds to provide grants to outreach partners. Make grants available to local governments and nonprofits, said NATOA.

Another common complaint in EBB was the rate of benefit transfers. Require that ACP providers receive "affirmative opt-in consent" from a household, said NTCA, which ACA echoed. Better disclosures to consumers on benefit transfers would “reduce the administrative burdens on program administrators, service providers, and consumers,” said Incompas. Adopt a "30-day benefit transfer integrity check" except when a consumer moves outside a service area, said the National Lifeline Association.