Enforcing Lifeline Eligibility Can’t be Their Job, Service Providers Say
Telephone service providers asked to be relieved of the duty of verifying customers’ eligibility for the Lifeline program. Verification should be a government function, they said in comments to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service on proposed changes to the Lifeline and Link-Up programs. They split on the question of whether the Lifeline program should include broadband and whether households should be eligible for more than one discounted phone connection.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
AT&T said states should be responsible for determining eligibility. State agencies could then distribute PINs to eligible applicants, and telephone providers would use them to consult a nationwide database to confirm the applicant qualified for the program. Such a database would also prevent “double-dipping,” AT&T said. PR Wireless said the joint board should clarify that providers aren’t responsible for preventing double-dipping. It said Universal Service Administrative Co. auditors have been requiring carriers to prove their customers aren’t also customers of other carriers, and the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board wants eligible telecommunications carriers to resolve duplicate accounts on their own. “This obligation that is being shifted to carriers by USAC and the TRB is not only burdensome but also is an impossible task because concerns of privacy and competitive sensitivity prevent carriers from sharing information,” PR Wireless said. Verizon said AT&T’s proposal would “dramatically improve” program efficiency. A better solution would be to move to a voucher system, similar to the DTV converter box coupon system, Verizon said.
PR Wireless and Smith Bagley said the program should do away with the one-per-household requirement. Instead, each adult in the household should be eligible, they said. They said Americans increasingly rely on wireless phones for work, school and emergencies, and telecommunications are particularly important in impoverished areas like the Navajo Nation, which Smith Bagley serves, and Puerto Rico, where PR Wireless operates. If the one-per-household rule is retained, they said, the definition of “household” should be changed so people living in homeless shelters or multi-family housing units aren’t counted as living in a single household.
The wireless companies advocated changing income eligibility guidelines to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. US Telecom, however, said there’s no evidence that changing eligibility would increase participation.
The commission should expand Lifeline to include broadband services, said Smith Bagley, PR Wireless, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Cricket Communications and AT&T. Verizon said a decision on a broadband subsidy is premature. The commission should wait for the results of pilot programs recommended by the National Broadband Plan. “The right approach to increasing broadband adoption among the low income population may not be tied to Lifeline at all,” Verizon said. USTelecom said the voice portion of the Lifeline program must be more efficient and effective before broadband is added. It supported the idea of pilot programs and said if a discount is offered, it should be in standardized amounts without regard to whether customers obtain broadband in bundled packages.