States Stand Firm Seeking EBB Authority

NARUC won’t remove from a draft resolution on the emergency broadband benefit a clause asking Congress to phase bypassing the state eligible telecom carrier (ETC) designation process, said measure sponsor Crystal Rhoades on Friday. NCTA unsuccessfully asked to remove that clause Thursday at a NARUC Telecom Subcommittee meeting (see 2107150056). The EBB resolution and two other drafts are up for vote at NARUC’s Telecom Committee meeting Tuesday in Denver.

The EBB draft would seek additional funding to extend the program “for as long as necessary,” or at least until Lifeline reimbursement increases. It would urge the FCC to address problems with enrolling eligible households through the national verifier. NCTA Vice President-State Affairs Rick Cimerman urged a panel Thursday to remove the ETC designation because he said changing course now could disrupt service for customers whose ISPs aren't ETCs.

“We're not pulling the language,” Rhoades, a Nebraska public service commissioner, told us. Feedback from other state commissioners shows “strong support” for that clause, “and they aren't interested in modifying it,” she said. State ETC designation is “the regulation of last resort,” and one of the last tools left for states “to make sure consumers are getting what they’re paying for and that public money is being used responsibly,” she said in an interview earlier last week.

NCTA declined to comment Friday. A spokesperson earlier emailed that cable companies “largely support” the draft broadband and EBB resolutions and looked forward to sharing their views with committee members.

Rhoades sees broad commissioner support for her EBB resolution. The benefit lays out the “direction the FCC should be taking Lifeline in general,” she said. It should be a “long-term, programmatic change, as opposed to a short-term emergency benefit.” EBB proves the Lifeline subsidy was too small to have a meaningful impact, and that devices were a barrier, she said. The draft asks to fix some implementation problems, and Rhoades said she understands any new program will have “growing pains.” Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC) “is making an effort to streamline the national verifier process,” and the FCC “wants to help people access these services,” she said. “I’m encouraged by the progress.”

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance won't likely support anything that could make it take longer to sign up consumers, said Policy Director Amy Huffman. Not being an ETC “opened the door for many providers” to participate, she noted: “States have a big role to play” doing EBB outreach to residents. Huffman applauded NARUC for pushing for more broadband adoption and agreed Congress should extend and add funding to EBB, but said the benefit is best kept separate from Lifeline. “There really needs to be both," she said. "Just because we have EBB doesn’t mean suddenly low-income households don’t need a mobile phone.”

USTelecom doesn't “want to discourage participation,” and must balance “ensuring accountability while avoiding unnecessary regulation,” said Mike Saperstein, vice president-strategic initiatives and partnership. The association supports making EBB permanent, he said: “There have been hiccups with the registration process,” and they’re being addressed.

EBB should have national standards, which “in some ways ... will take the burden off of the state,” said Internet Innovation Alliance co-Chair Kim Keenan. Overall, NARUC’s draft says “the right thing at the right time,” she said: There's a “window” that, “if used well, could really result in reforming the Lifeline program.” Enrollment could be smoother and take less time, and the FCC seems open to adjustments, she said.

The National Lifeline Association supports transitioning the EBB into permanent Lifeline increases, and the EBB proposal’s call for “Lifeline reform to include increased subsidies and a revised approach to minimum service standards,” emailed counsel John Heitmann. NaLA supports “additional EBB funding and increased transparency” about the NV, which “is still missing key application programming interface functionalities for EBB, including some that it has for Lifeline.” Consumers “have faced hours-long hold times” due to apparent understaffing, while FCC failure to address California-specific problems left people waiting weeks to be enrolled, Heitmann added.

Other Resolutions

Other resolutions up for a vote by state commissioners this week have been less controversial.

A proposed telecom resolution is based on last month’s NARUC Broadband Task Force report and recommendations, which include prioritizing broadband support in areas with less than 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload and removing barriers to nontraditional providers like utilities-cum-ISPs (see 2106250048). A third draft asks the FCC to reconsider a decision not to share network outage and disaster information reporting system information with states. It follows a similar resolution last fall (see 2011100033).

New Telecom Committee member Riley Allen likes the draft resolutions’ “emphasis on increasing available and affordable broadband access” and “concerns related to service reliability and disruptions at an appropriately aggregated level,” emailed the Vermont Public Utility Commission member. “On their face, these proposals seem sensible ... but I am eager to hear the give and take from the other states.”

USTelecom raised concerns last month about the state broadband group’s focus on encouraging electric utilities to expand into broadband (see 2106020077). “I felt like they heard us,” Saperstein said now. “I appreciate that they revised the draft to acknowledge the role” played by traditional ISPs, he said. “Broadband is not the same as electricity. It’s not a set-it, forget-it technology.” USTelecom supports the group’s recommendations to prioritize unserved and improve funding coordination, he said. On the other resolution, he said the FCC’s past decision to keep outage reports confidential was correct.

USAC declined to comment. The FCC didn’t comment.