The FCC Should Abandon Its Highly Unpopular Proposal to Gut Lifeline

New America’s Open Technology Institute (OTI) filed reply comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging the FCC to abandon its proposal to make sweeping cuts to the Lifeline program. OTI, after filing initial comments on the proposal in February, highlighted the wide variety of commenters that represent the public interest community, racial and social justice advocates, the telecommunications and wireless industry, and progressive and conservative analysts who oppose the FCC’s proposals that would drastically undermine Lifeline and leave millions of low-income Americans without access to crucial communications services.

In its reply comments, OTI surveyed the strong opposition to several policies. First, the record shows nearly unanimous opposition to the FCC’s proposed ban on non-facilities-based providers, otherwise known as resellers, in the Lifeline program. The FCC’s reasoning ignores the fact that facilities-based providers have already considered the business case to join Lifeline and have opted not to participate. Resellers, meanwhile, fill the void left by these carriers and provide a critical service to low-income consumers. Additionally, resellers actually bring business to facilities-based providers who might not want to join Lifeline, but can sell their excess capacity on networks to resellers instead.

Second, the record reflects broad skepticism of the FCC’s proposed budget and benefit caps. There is no evidence to suggest that the current budget for Lifeline needs to be fixed. Lifeline support is currently well below its historical high level and the FCC offers no valid basis for cutting it. Further, the FCC’s proposal to prioritize the budget to favor rural areas over urban areas would add unnecessary complication to the process and would put the FCC in an inappropriate position of determining that some Americans deserve Lifeline support more than others. The FCC has other programs that work specifically toward the important goal of improving rural connectivity, but the Lifeline program is designed to make communications services more affordable for all Americans, regardless of where they live.

Third, there is strong support in the record for maintaining the Lifeline Broadband Provider (LBP) designation, standalone broadband, and the rules that require providers to sell devices that are Wi-Fi and hotspot-enabled to Lifeline recipients (the “equipment rule”). Without an LBP designation, which created a mechanism for the FCC to clearly identify national broadband providers as eligible for standalone broadband support, carriers are less likely to join the Lifeline program. If fewer carriers join the program, it would lead to fewer options for consumers and less competition in the market. The FCC’s proposal to remove the equipment rule undermines the tens of millions of dollars local governments have invested in closing the digital divide and the homework gap by building their own Wi-Fi networks at schools, libraries, hospitals, public parks, community centers, and other municipal buildings.

Fourth, the record demonstrates strong concerns about the privacy risks associated with the FCC’s proposals. Implementation of the program changes would necessitate a tracking system that monitors a Lifeline recipient’s geographic location, income history, and benefits accrual over the course of a lifetime that is unprecedented in scale and scope—and deeply intrusive on recipients’ privacy. Such a system would require strong data security protections, but nothing in the item or the record indicates that the Commission has contemplated any risk to privacy or measures to safeguard consumer data.

Fifth, the record shows that the Commission’s proposals—namely banning resellers, imposing a strict budget cap, implementing lifetime benefit restrictions, and focusing Lifeline support to rural areas over urban areas—would disproportionately harm the most vulnerable communities in the United States. Communities of color, low-income health care recipients, older Americans, and Puerto Ricans would all suffer if these proposals are enacted, as they would remove consumer choice and severely restrict the efficacy of the Lifeline program.

Finally, there is strong opposition in the record to the FCC’s attempts to turn Lifeline into an infrastructure program. Lifeline has always been an affordability program designed to reduce the cost of service for low-income Americans who cannot afford the vital communications services they need to live in modern society. While there are several other Universal Service Fund programs that handle the problem of infrastructure and deployment, Lifeline is the only FCC program specifically tailored to help low-income Americans afford communications services. The FCC should continue to administer Lifeline as an affordability program, rather than shift focus toward the type of infrastructure investment already contemplated by other programs without the Universal Service Fund.

The FCC’s plan to destabilize the Lifeline program through numerous cuts is strongly opposed by a wide variety of entities. The FCC should continue its work in bringing more Americans the communications services they need, rather than working to undermine one of its most critical programs in bridging the digital divide.