Lifeline Replies Back Broadband Expansion, Administrative Restructuring

AT&T said initial comments offered much support for core elements of its “New Lifeline” proposal, including: “inclusion of broadband Internet access services in the Lifeline program; removal of providers from administration of the Lifeline program; and expanding the pool of Lifeline providers while streamlining the registration process.” The record also counseled against imposing Lifeline-specific standards where the benefit is applied to generally available services or “interim and burdensome regulation discussed in the Notice,” AT&T said.

Adtran, CenturyLink and Cox Communications agreed minimum service standards aren’t needed, while WTA-Advocates for Rural Broadband said any minimum service standards should align with Connect America Fund requirements. CenturyLink and Cox also agreed the commission should retain its $9.25 per month Lifeline subscriber benefit, and Cox warned against imposing unnecessary burdens. But WTA said almost all commenters agreed $9.25 was insufficient to cover broadband or even fixed voice costs.

Wireless carriers, led by CTIA and the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) said revised Lifeline rules must reflect the growing importance of wireless service to the USF program. The record shows wireless services are “the backbone of the Lifeline program, significantly increasing the program’s success in connecting eligible low-income consumers,” CTIA said in comments. “Wireless providers have created new and attractive Lifeline service options and have greatly enhanced the public benefits of the program.” CTIA noted comments from Consumers Union and Free Press on the growing importance of mobile service to many who depend on Lifeline.

The FCC should not impose “minimum service standards” on what generally available broadband services are eligible for Lifeline support and if standards are adopted they should “reflect consumer adoption and utilization of mobile wireless services,” CTIA said. The FCC also shouldn't adopt regulations that “unnecessarily burden” Lifeline providers while not improving program administration, such as proposals for officer training certifications and maintaining a dedicated 24/7 de-enrollment line, the wireless association said.

The “unique benefits” offered by mobile broadband services, including lower cost of service and equipment, “make it particularly accessible and useful to low-income consumers,” CCA said. The group warned against setting minimum speed requirements, especially speeds based on what's available in urban areas. “At its core, Lifeline support is designed to subsidize the ability of low-income consumers to access available services -- not to subsidize the ability of service providers to expand the capabilities of existing networks; that is the function of the High-Cost USF programs.” CCA urged the FCC to adopt reforms, including taking steps to streamline the eligible telecom carrier (ETC) designation process, encouraging the use of “underutilized spectrum” to provide innovative services to low-income consumers and treating the sending of text messages as evidence a subscriber is using Lifeline service.

T-Mobile also emphasized the importance of ensuring the Lifeline program supports wireless service. Providing support for mobile “will bring numerous benefits to low-income consumers, such as helping to alleviate the ‘homework gap,’” the carrier said. T-Mobile also cautioned against capping the program at the current time and said the FCC should “recognize the transformation in consumer usage patterns and allow text messaging to count as ‘usage’ under the non-usage rule.” If the FCC gets the rules right, providers like T-Mobile will be likely to offer Lifeline service more broadly, the carrier said. “To create the proper incentives for a more competitive Lifeline marketplace, the Commission should ease the regulatory burdens for entering and providing Lifeline service, while maintaining strong protections against waste, fraud, and abuse,” it said.

Lifeline offerings are highly competitive and imposing minimum standards, such as speeds, would be “unwarranted and counter-productive,” Sprint said. “The availability of ever-richer wireless Lifeline service offerings from a multitude of service providers is undeniable proof that this market segment is vigorously competitive and that Lifeline subscribers are reaping enormous benefits from the existing support payment,” Sprint said. Any customer who doesn't like service from one carrier can easily switch to another ETC, the carrier said.

Most consumer groups backed minimum service standards. In various filings, the Benton Foundation and Rural Broadband Policy Group, Greenlining Institute and others, the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center and others, and the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute called for minimum standards. Such standards are “the only credible way to ensure that Lifeline participants receive an adequate level of service,” Benton said. But Public Knowledge and Appalshop said the commission should refrain from setting minimum standards at this time, while Free Press recognized the difficulty of setting such standards and suggested the use of a reverse auction.

The National Hispanic Media Coalition said the FCC should examine minimum service standards and consider various ways to ensure Lifeline customers don’t receive substandard service. NHMC and other minority advocates voiced support for giving Lifeline subscribers new broadband/voice options. But some local authorities continued to express concern that Lifeline voice support could be jeopardized.

AT&T and the American Cable Association said Lifeline benefits should go directly to consumers, not to service providers. Free Press said a direct benefit to consumers wouldn't add to program complexity or increase fraud, “and is a necessary mechanism to promote competition and subscriber freedom.”

AT&T cited support for leveraging state agency expertise to coordinate Lifeline enrollment with existing federal efforts, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps). AT&T said its New Lifeline proposal addressed many of the administrative and resource concerns flagged by a Department of Agriculture agency that runs SNAP and other federal assistance programs. For instance, AT&T proposed that the FCC and the Universal Service Administrative Co., not USDA, maintain the national Lifeline database on consumer eligibility status. AT&T also said state agencies wouldn’t incur many new expenses, another USDA concern.

NCTA said the FCC should allow all service providers to participate in Lifeline, not just “eligible telecom carriers” designated by regulators. The ACA said the ETC requirement should be eliminated or streamlined. ITTA said Lifeline should be delinked from the ETC designation process if a national third-party verifier isn't established. But NTCA and John Staurulakis Inc. warned against “fast-pass” ETC designations in the name of “'streamlining’ that fail to fully consider [telecom provider] qualifications, experience or commitment” to universal service.

Comptel said the FCC should reject any requirements that would prevent real-time Lifeline eligibility verification in a single transaction. ITTA said the FCC shouldn't expand Lifeline to broadband until it addresses USF contribution reform. Panasonic said Lifeline broadband coverage would be particularly helpful to lowering healthcare costs for seniors suffering from chronic conditions.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s Public Utility Division disputed some wireless carrier criticisms of its Lifeline regulatory efforts as overly zealous. The division said its rules have been “instrumental in protecting Lifeline consumers in Oklahoma and have served to drastically reduce waste, fraud and abuse.” The division also urged the FCC to extend a planned 180-day transition period for redefining tribal lands in Oklahoma to ensure a fully operational electronic system is in place to depict tribal boundary lines and determine whether consumers live on tribal lands. Tribal lands are eligible for higher Lifeline benefits due to tribal credits, but critics say Oklahoma’s designated tribal lands include many nontribal members.

The National Tribal Telecommunications Association stressed the importance of Lifeline in tribal areas. The NTTA said the tribal Lifeline credits must increase if Lifeline is expanded to support broadband service. The California Association of Tribal Governments agreed the tribal credit should be increased and urged the FCC to consult with tribal nations in general. Both the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington state said tribes are underserved by large price-cap telcos and urged the FCC to retain the enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up (connection) support.