Joan Marsh

As Congress debates increases to the Lifeline benefit, it should also ensure that funds are directly appropriated to support any benefit increase or otherwise ensure that the Universal Service Fund funding mechanism is significantly reformed. Relying on decades-old funding approaches will only serve to undermine the goal of providing 21st-century broadband connectivity to Lifeline eligible households.

On Sept 2, the Federal Communications Commission will take comments on NTIA’s petition on reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a provision enacted in 1996 to address a narrow set of concerns involving nascent internet platforms that then played only a marginal role in American life.  The purpose of the provision made sense at that moment in internet history:  Section 230 sought to insulate the newly emerging tech

Although Lifeline eligibility is now linked directly to the Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program, Lifeline has adopted none of the technology advances designed to make it both consumer and provider-friendly.  If the Lifeline program is to play a bigger role in addressing the well-documented internet usage gaps for low-income Americans, the program must be modernized. In a modernized Lifeline program, eligible households would apply

Here are at least three very good reasons why we shouldn’t wait any longer to address the rising Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution factor:

April 26, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced that he would open a proceeding to revisit the question of whether Congress directed the FCC to regulate the internet using the regulatory framework adopted in 1934 for the monopoly-era telephone networks. To be clear, this proceeding is not about whether the open internet will continue to be protected and preserved. That question has been asked and answered repeatedly and in the affirmative by Democratic and Republican Administrations alike for well over a decade, first with the Powell and Martin Internet Principles, then with the Genachowski Open Internet Order...

[T]he question of this moment is not whether the internet will remain open – it undoubtedly will. The question is how, as a country, we will regulate the Internet ecosystem – including not only Internet service providers and the broadband infrastructure they deploy, but the tech companies that now dominate the Internet experience. The question is also whether Congress will commit on a bi-partisan basis to adopt a balanced and durable statutory framework that will enshrine reasonable rules for the digital road with specificity and clarity. That, in the end, is the only way to resolve the open internet debate once and for all.

If a recent House Communications Subcommittee hearing on broadband infrastructure is any measure, there appears to be growing consensus that any new infrastructure bill should include dollars for broadband – arguably the most essential infrastructure for American progress and productivity. But the hearing also made clear that Congress continues to have significant concerns around how to design such a program to ensure that any dollars designated for broadband are spent wisely.

We support an approach that places responsibility on the Federal Communications Commission to disperse any new broadband dollars through its Connect America Fund (CAF) and Mobility Fund (MF) programs. These two programs, as further refined in two orders adopted by the FCC in March, provide clear evidence that the Commission has the expertise and the tools to manage a data-driven process that will ensure that any incremental broadband funding is directed where broadband does not currently exist and is needed the most.

Congress continues to have significant concerns around how to design an infrastructure program to ensure that any dollars designated for broadband are spent wisely. Fortunately, there is a solution. We support an approach that places responsibility on the Federal Communications Commission to disperse any new broadband dollars through its Connect America Fund (CAF) and Mobility Fund (MF) programs. These two programs, as further refined in two orders adopted by the FCC in Feb 2017, provide clear evidence that the FCC has the expertise and the tools to manage a data-driven process that will ensure that any incremental broadband funding is directed where broadband does not currently exist and is needed the most.

To be clear, current CAF II and MF II dollars are unlikely to be sufficient to complete the job of getting broadband deployment to all these remote areas. By our estimate, the $198M/year that will be made available through the CAF II auction is only 21% of the FCC’s own calculated deployment costs for all eligible areas. To address this, bids will be scored and ranked, regardless of geography, from lowest to highest with support awarded to winning projects until funding is exhausted. And we fully expect the budget to run out before all eligible areas are funded. But these programs are the best way to use available dollars and, importantly, these programs leverage private investment to the maximum extent possible by awarding funds to the bidder willing to get the job done at the lowest cost. It’s a true public-private partnership.

Federal Communications Commission reform is a topic of much discussion these days. Indeed, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has already initiated some important process reforms and we anticipate that more are coming. Clearer and more transparent processes will lead to better regulatory results. We have also been contemplating reform and will, from time to time, be posting our ideas for regulatory and structural reform at the FCC.

We start with some ideas for reforming process at the Enforcement Bureau – a Bureau that operated for many years with professionalism but whose recent practices have been marked increasingly by bad process, novel and tenuous theories of liability, and Notices of Apparent Liability (NALs) that languish after adoption. There are a number of areas where we believe the enforcement process can and should be significantly improved.

It remains unclear why the Wireless Bureau continues to question the value of giving consumers the ability to watch video without incurring any data charges. This practice, which has been embraced by AT&T and other broadband providers, has enabled millions of consumers to enjoy the latest popular content and services – for free. We hope the government continues to support a competitive marketplace that lowers costs and increases choice for consumers.

As we explain (again) in the response provided to the Wireless Bureau, the video entertainment marketplace is ripe for disruptive change, which is exactly why consumers have enthusiastically embraced Data Free TV in all its competitive forms. That enthusiasm has caused competitors to react with additional consumer-friendly video offerings, like the T-Mobile offer announced recently.

And although the Commission has decided to apply Title II to broadband services, the Wireless Bureau’s analysis of AT&T’s sponsored data platform abandons decades of Title II jurisprudence to raise questions about a service that undeniably increases choice and lowers costs for video consumers. This is exactly the type of pro-consumer benefit that the DirecTV acquisition was designed to achieve.