Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, NW 2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20554

Common Carrier Docket No. 96-45
Ex Parte

Dear Mr. Secretary,

The Benton Foundation and The Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition, Inc. ("commenters") offer the following comments on eligibility requirements for the Lifeline and Link Up programs.

In identifying and verifying eligible participants for the Lifeline and Link Up programs, the Commission should devise a system with one overarching goal: making sure that the people most in need of these benefits receive them. The Commission should cast a wide net in identifying recipients and construct low hurdles for enrolling them in universal service programs.

Income appears to be the most important factor in phone affordability. Using Census Bureau statistics from November 1994, we find that 80 percent of households without telephone service have incomes below $25,000. And although households with incomes less than $15,000 represent 28 percent of all US households, they represent nearly 69 percent of the households without telephone service. When the cost of basic telephone service drops below one percent of household income, the penetration rate begins to exceed 90%. About 99% of all households choose to have basic telephone service when rates fall below .7% of annual household income.

The Joint Board recommends that the "Commission adopt specific means-tested eligibility standards to apply in states that choose not to provide matching support from the intrastate jurisdiction. Specifically, we recommend that low-income consumers participating in a state-administered, low-income welfare program (and who are not considered dependents for federal income tax purposes, with the exception of dependents over the age of 60) would be eligible for Lifeline assistance."{1} The commenters suggest that the Commission set, as a minimum for all states, as the eligibility criteria for the Lifeline and Link Up programs: any household inhabited by a participant in any federal means-tested assistance program. This national standard will serve as a means of fulfilling the statutory principle that telecommunications services be available to low-income consumers "in all regions of the Nation."{2} Moreover, the commenters urge the Commission to make a household's participation in these assistance programs -- e.g. Medicaid, food stamps, Supplementary Security Income, public housing assistance and Section 8, LIHEAP, or the school lunch program{3} -- mean automatic enrollment in the Lifeline and Link Up programs. In this respect, the commenters support the comments of the Montana Public Service Commission and the New York Department of Public Service.{4} Finally, in light of the recent restructuring of the welfare system and efforts to move low-income people from welfare to work, the commenters propose that recipients of Earned Income Tax Credits also be automatically eligible and enrolled in Lifeline and Link Up programs.

The commenters also suggest that the Commission be aggressive in efforts to identify eligible recipients. The Joint Board recommendations and the resulting Commission order will produce radical changes for universal service eligibility and support. The worst of all possible universal service scenarios is the creation of explicit, competitively neutral support mechanisms that go unused because eligible recipients remain unaware of them. In determining the discount levels for schools, the Joint Board has recommended the percentage of students eligible for school lunch programs as a criteria.{5} In collecting the information that sets their own discount levels, schools can be proactive aids in identifying the low-income households eligible for Lifeline and Link Up. Schools could then provide this information to the Universal Service Fund administer for automatic enrollment in these programs. Increasing phone penetration in these targeted households could improve teacher-parent communication and, particularly in this case, meet the Telecommunication Act of 1996's mandate to consider if a service is "essential to education, public health, or public safety."{6}

The commenters thank the Commission for this opportunity to address eligibility issues.

Respectfully submitted,

Ellis Jacobs
Council for the
Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF DAYTON
333 West First Street, Suite 500
Dayton, OH 45402
(513) 228-8088, Extension 111

Kevin Taglang
Benton Foundation
950 18th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-4006
phone: 202-638-5770
fax: 202-638-5771
kevint@benton.org

cc:
Charles Keller, Universal Service Branch, Common Carrier Bureau
Lori Wright, Universal Service Branch, Common Carrier Bureau

FOOTNOTES

{1} See Recommended Decision ("FCC 96J-3") at para. 425.

{2} 47 U.S.C. sec. 254(b)(3).

{3} If the Commission believes it must narrow the number of programs that define eligibility, we suggest, at a minimum, food stamps, Medicaid, SSI, and LIHEAP.

{4} FCC 96J-3 at para. 412.

{5} FCC 96J-3 at para. 555.

{6} 47 U.S.C. sec. 254 (c)(1)(A).

Return to the Joint Board page.

Return to the Universal service section of Regulating basic telephone service.