Impacts on Subscribers and Providers

On January 28, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing significant reforms to its Lifeline program, which makes communications services more affordable for low-income households. The FCC cites program integrity concerns, fraud prevention, and waste reduction as primary motivations. These proposals would substantially affect both Lifeline subscribers and participating service providers.

As of June 2025, more than 8.12 million subscribers were enrolled in the Lifeline program. Those subscribers receive $9.25 in monthly support for services that include broadband and $5.25 in monthly support for voice-only service. An additional $25 monthly benefit is available for Tribal lands subscribers.

I. Impacts on Lifeline Subscribers

Lifeline subscribers are essentially Americans facing economic hardship who need help affording basic phone and internet service to stay connected for work, education, healthcare, and emergency services. To be eligible for Lifeline, a household must have an annual income at or below 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines or be enrolled in Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (food stamps), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Federal Public Housing Assistance, Veterans and Survivors Pension Benefit, Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance, Head Start (meeting income standards), Tribally-administered TANF, or Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

1. Eligibility and Immigration Status Verification

What the FCC Proposes

• Lifeline would be classified as a "federal public benefit" under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
• Only U.S. citizens and "qualified aliens" would be eligible
• Qualified aliens may face a five-year waiting period after entry to the U.S. before eligibility
• Use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to verify immigration status
• Possible requirement to provide a full 9-digit Social Security number instead of the last 4 digits

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC states that over 2 million Social Security numbers were improperly assigned to non-citizens in 2024. The agency cites the need to ensure federal dollars go only to legally eligible recipients and to prevent fraud involving improperly obtained SSNs.

Impact on Subscribers

• Potential loss of service: Qualified aliens who have not been in the U.S. for five years could lose benefits
• More invasive verification: Applicants would need to provide additional documentation about their immigration status
• Privacy concerns: Full SSN collection increases risk if data is breached
• Enrollment barriers: Additional documentation requirements may deter eligible households from applying
• Uncertainty: A transition period has not been specified for current subscribers who may become ineligible

2. Secondary Consent Verification for Enrollment and Transfers

What the FCC Proposes

• Require subscribers to confirm enrollment or transfer through text message or email
• This verification would be separate from the initial application
• Possible one-transfer-per-month limitation
• Potential freeze period (60-90 days) after enrollment, before transfers are allowed

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC Office of Inspector General found that too many consumers were enrolled without their knowledge or consent. The agency states this secondary verification would protect consumers from unwanted enrollments or transfers by unscrupulous providers or agents.

Impact on Subscribers

• Enrollment delays: An additional verification step may slow down service activation
• Technology barriers: Requires a working phone number or email address for verification
• Limited flexibility: Transfer restrictions could trap subscribers with poor providers
• Positive protection: May reduce fraudulent enrollments and unwanted transfers
• Domestic violence survivors: Concerns about additional verification burden for vulnerable populations

3. Usage Requirements for All Plans

What the FCC Proposes

• Extend usage tracking to all Lifeline plans, including those with monthly fees
• Currently, only free plans require usage tracking and non-usage de-enrollment
• Subscribers must use services at least once every 30 days or face de-enrollment
• Possible requirement for providers to submit usage data with reimbursement claims

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC states that some providers have created payment plans to evade usage requirements (e.g., annual lump-sum payments decremented monthly, or "digital wallet" plans). The agency argues that extending usage tracking to all plans would eliminate these workarounds and ensure USF dollars support actual communications needs.

Impact on Subscribers

• Risk of unintended de-enrollment: Subscribers who paid for service could lose it for non-use
• Less consumer choice: May eliminate certain plan types currently available
• Beneficial for some: Ensures subsidized service is actually being used
• Monitoring concerns: Increased tracking of usage patterns raises privacy issues

4. Minimum Service Standards Changes

What the FCC Proposes

• Revise or eliminate the mobile broadband data allowance formula
  • Current standard: 4.5 gigabits (GB) per month (frozen since 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic)
• Existing formula would have increased to 29 GB in 2025 (nearly 6.5x increase), which the FCC waived
• FCC seeks comment on new approaches: static amounts, tied to average usage, or alternative formulas

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC states the current automatic formula produces results "so far out of step with actual data usage" and creates results larger than contemplated when adopted. The agency has issued waivers because strict application would "risk upsetting the careful balance of service quality and affordability" and could make Lifeline service unaffordable or disrupt the low-income broadband market.

Impact on Subscribers

• Data allowance uncertainty: Standards could increase, decrease, or remain static
• Service availability: Higher standards might cause providers to exit the program, reducing choices
• Cost to consumers: Increased standards may require subscriber copayments
• Improved service (potential): Could result in better data allowances if the formula is adjusted upward
• Status quo likely: FCC seems inclined to keep standards modest, given repeated waivers

5. Voice-Only Service Support

What the FCC Proposes

• Re-examine whether to maintain $5.25 support for voice-only service
• Voice support was scheduled to be phased out in 2021, but has been extended every year since
• Over 160,000 subscribers still use voice-only or bundled plans that don't meet broadband standards

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC's 2016 decision to phase out voice support was based on focusing Lifeline on broadband as "more vital to current communications needs." However, the agency has repeatedly granted waivers citing a minority of subscribers using voice-only service, heightened reliance during COVID-19, availability of alternative programs, concerns about access to emergency services, and incomplete utilization of bundled services.

Impact on Subscribers

• Service loss risk: 160,000+ subscribers could lose voice-only support
• Forced upgrades: May need to switch to broadband plans that cost more or are unavailable in their area
• Emergency access: Concerns about maintaining 911 access without voice service
• Seniors and limited users: Particularly affects those who prefer or only need basic phone service
• Rural areas: May disproportionately affect areas with limited broadband availability

6. One-Per-Household Rule Enforcement

What the FCC Proposes

• Consider changing from "one-per-household" to "one-per-residence" rule
• Alternatively, implement a cap on the number of households per address
• Allow Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the administrator of the Lifeline program, to share address-level enrollment data with providers in the National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD), which allows service providers to enroll Lifeline-eligible consumers in the program and manage their Lifeline subscribers

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC states that providers cannot currently see how many households at a single address receive Lifeline from other providers, making duplicate detection difficult. The agency cites concerns that multiple households in group living facilities are receiving benefits.

Impact on Subscribers

• Multi-family housing residents: Could lose benefits if multiple independent households share an address
• Group homes: Residents of facilities with shared addresses would be particularly affected
• Dispute resolution: May face challenges proving household independence
• Privacy concerns: More data sharing about enrollments at addresses

7. State Opt-Out Program Changes

What the FCC Proposes

• Eliminate or restrict state opt-out status (currently Texas and Oregon; California's opt-out status was already revoked in 2025)
• Require all states to use the federal National Verifier for eligibility checks

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC Office of Inspector General found that providers across opt-out states received nearly $5 million in Lifeline reimbursements for deceased individuals. The FCC states that opt-out states' identity verification methods "failed to prevent the enrollment of some deceased individuals," and that state processes no longer serve the objectives of ensuring accurate eligibility determinations and improving efficiency.

Impact on Subscribers

• Texas and Oregon residents: The application process would change to the federal system
• Loss of state integration: May no longer be able to apply for state and federal benefits simultaneously
• Transition disruption: Possible service interruption during system change
• Standardization benefit: A consistent process nationwide may reduce confusion

II. Impacts on Lifeline Providers

1. Enhanced Compliance Plan Requirements

What the FCC Proposes

• Significantly expanded compliance plan requirements for non-facilities-based carriers
• Required elements may include:
  • Detailed corporate structure, including parent companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries
  • Foreign ownership disclosure
  • Senior management experience documentation
  • Audited financial statements
  • Compliance officer certification
  • Disclosure of criminal history, investigations, or prior violations
  • Database and transaction processing system descriptions
  • Agent training and monitoring procedures
  • Resale wholesaler contracts
• Possible requirement for letters of credit (similar to High Cost program)
• Annual or periodic compliance plan resubmission and re-approval
• Automatic termination of the compliance plan for certain violations
• Possible public comment period for compliance plans

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC cites "egregious program integrity violations" by non-facilities-based carriers, particularly Q Link Wireless (whose owner received a 60-month prison sentence and $110+ million settlement for fraud, including enrolling customers who never activated service). The agency notes other enforcement actions against TracFone, American Broadband, and Total Call Mobile. The FCC argues enhanced compliance plans are necessary to ensure carriers are "bona fide telecommunications providers" with adequate financial and technical capability.

Impact on Providers

• Substantial administrative burden: Extensive documentation and disclosure requirements
• Financial costs: Preparation of audited statements, potential need for legal/compliance staff
• Letter of credit requirement: Could require significant capital reserves
• Barrier to entry: May deter new providers, particularly smaller entities
• Ongoing compliance: Annual resubmission creates a recurring administrative burden
• Confidentiality concerns: Public comment on compliance plans could expose business information
• Revocation risk: Automatic termination provisions create greater business uncertainty

2. Usage Tracking and Reporting Requirements

What the FCC Proposes

• Require usage tracking for all plans, including those with monthly fees
• Possible submission of usage data with each reimbursement claim
• Specification of required usage documentation (e.g., call detail records)
• Ban on certain plan structures (annual payments, digital wallets)

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC states some providers have created payment structures "to conceal the fact they lacked a regular billing relationship" and avoid usage requirements, such as collecting annual lump-sum fees decremented monthly, or using provider-controlled "digital wallets." The agency argues blanket usage requirements would "discourage ETCs from creating new plans that attempt to evade usage requirements" and ensure transparency into subscriber usage.

Impact on Providers

• System modifications: Need to implement or expand usage tracking systems for all plans
• Data collection and storage: Maintain detailed call/data records for compliance
• Claims process changes: Potentially submit usage data monthly with reimbursement requests
• Plan restructuring: Eliminate or modify plans deemed non-compliant (annual payments, wallets)
• Increased de-enrollments: More subscribers at risk of non-usage de-enrollment
• Privacy compliance: Additional obligations under communications privacy laws

3. Consent Documentation and Verification

What the FCC Proposes

• Secondary verification of enrollment/transfer consent via text or email
• Possible requirement to submit evidence of consent for each transaction
• Input consent timestamps into NLAD
• Standardized consent language
• Restrictions on enrollment representative compensation and activities

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC Office of Inspector General found "too many consumers were enrolled in the Commission's affordability programs without their knowledge or consent and without receiving service." The agency states secondary verification would "better protect consumers against enrollments or transfers against their will" and prevent waste of limited Universal Service Fund (USF) funds.

Impact on Providers

• Verification system implementation: Need automated text/email verification systems
• Delayed activations: Cannot activate service until secondary verification is complete
• Documentation retention: Store and produce consent evidence for each subscriber
• NLAD system changes: Modify enrollment processes to capture timestamps
• Agent management: Enhanced oversight of enrollment representatives' activities
• Sales process disruption: Additional friction in customer acquisition

4. Identity Verification Changes

What the FCC Proposes

• Collection of full 9-digit SSN (currently only last 4 digits)
• Use of the SAVE database for immigration status verification
• Enhanced security standards for SSN collection and storage

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC argues that verifying identity is "an integral step to confirming eligibility" and that full SSN collection would enable more thorough identity verification and help combat fraud. The agency cites increased security requirements under FISMA and NIST 800-53 as already applying to partial SSNs.

Impact on Providers

• Security infrastructure: Significant upgrades needed to protect full SSNs
• Compliance costs: NIST 800-53 security controls for highly sensitive PII
• Data breach liability: Greater exposure if SSNs are compromised
• Enrollment representative training: Enhanced procedures for handling full SSNs
• Application form changes: Update collection processes and systems
• Subscriber reluctance: May face increased resistance to providing full SSN

5. Agreements with Non-ETCs

What the FCC Proposes

• Restrict or prohibit arrangements where Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs)¹ allow non-ETCs to offer service under ETC's name
• Require advance notification of third-party marketing agreements
• Enhanced tracking of enrollment representatives and marketing companies
• Potential recovery actions against non-ETCs involved in violations

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC states it has become aware of situations where "ETCs have entered into agreements with non-ETCs whereby the ETC allows the non-ETC to offer Lifeline service using the ETC's name," with the ETC receiving reimbursement despite not directly providing service. The agency argues such arrangements violate the requirement that only designated ETCs may receive reimbursement for "directly" serving subscribers.

Impact on Providers

• Business model disruption: May eliminate certain reseller/distributor arrangements
• Prior approval requirements: Need FCC authorization for marketing agreements
• Enhanced oversight: More extensive monitoring of third-party relationships
• Liability concerns: Greater risk if third-party partners violate rules
• RAD compliance: Stricter requirements for agent registration and reporting

6. Reporting Burden Changes

What the FCC Proposes

• Possible consolidation of FCC Form 481² and FCC Form 555³
• Synchronized filing deadlines (currently July 1 and January 31)
• Elimination of certain reporting requirements:

  - Network outage reporting

  - Complaint reporting

  - Certain service quality certifications

• Coordinated filing portal for multiple agencies

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC seeks to "reduce regulatory reporting burdens on ETCs participating in Lifeline, particularly small businesses," while ensuring program integrity. The agency notes that some requirements duplicate information collected elsewhere and proposes streamlining consistent with its "Delete, Delete, Delete" deregulatory initiative.

Impact on Providers

• Potential burden reduction: Fewer or consolidated forms could reduce administrative costs
• Timing challenges: Synchronized deadlines may create workload concentration
• System updates: Need to adapt to new filing processes and formats
• Small business benefit: Disproportionate benefit to smaller providers with limited staff
• Uncertain timeline: Unclear when and how changes would be implemented

7. Service Standards and Market Impact

What the FCC Proposes

• Reform minimum service standard update mechanisms
• Possible elimination of voice-only support ($5.25/month)
• Inquiry into provider ability to offer no-cost-to-consumer plans

FCC's Stated Rationale

The FCC states its existing minimum service standard formulas have been "repeatedly waived" and produce "unexpected or highly varied outcomes," suggesting they are "ill-suited to their purpose." The agency seeks to understand "how increased minimum service standards would alter" the low-income communications market and whether standards should be "static or adjusted periodically."

Impact on Providers

• Business model uncertainty: Unclear what service levels will be required
• Voice-only exit: Loss of 160,000+ voice subscribers if support is eliminated
• Service cost pressure: Higher standards may require subscriber fees
• Provider exits: Some may leave the program if costs exceed the subsidy
• Network capacity: Need to ensure adequate capacity for increased data allowances
• Rural challenges: Particularly affect providers in areas with limited infrastructure

III. For More Context

Recent Enforcement Actions Cited by FCC

The FCC references several major enforcement actions as rationale for these reforms:

• Q Link Wireless: $110+ million settlement; CEO received 60-month prison sentence for enrolling customers who never activated service and billing for non-existent subscribers
• TracFone Wireless: $23.5 million settlement for program violations
• American Broadband: Enforcement action for program violations
• Total Call Mobile: $30 million settlement and program exit

FCC Office of Inspector General Findings

The NPRM extensively cites FCC OIG reports identifying:

• Program fraud as the "foremost challenge facing the [FCC]"
• Providers and agents enrolling deceased individuals
• Opt-out states' verification methods failing to prevent deceased enrollments
• Duplicate claims filed across multiple opt-out states
• Nearly $5 million in improper payments for deceased individuals across opt-out states

IV. Timeline and Process

• The NPRM will be voted on at the FCC's February 18, 2026, open meeting
• If the NPRM is approved at the open meeting, public comments will be due 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register 
• Final rules: Timeline unknown; could take months to over a year

V. Key Uncertainties

The NPRM poses many questions without proposing specific answers:

• Whether a five-year waiting period would apply to qualified aliens
• How minimum service standards would be calculated going forward
• Whether voice-only support would be maintained
• Specific transition periods for affected subscribers
• Exact requirements for enhanced compliance plans
• Whether letters of credit would be required and at what amounts

VI. Conclusion

As the FCC notes, the NPRM represents the most comprehensive proposed overhaul of the Lifeline program in over a decade. The FCC frames these changes primarily as program integrity measures to combat fraud, waste, and abuse, citing specific enforcement cases and OIG findings. However, the proposals would significantly affect both subscribers' access to affordable communications and providers' ability to participate in the Lifeline program.

For subscribers, the most consequential changes include potential loss of eligibility for qualified aliens, increased documentation requirements, and possible elimination of voice-only support. For providers, enhanced compliance plan requirements, usage tracking obligations, and potential letter-of-credit requirements represent substantial new burdens, particularly for smaller and non-facilities-based carriers.

The comment period will allow affected parties to provide specific feedback on costs, benefits, and implementation concerns. Many proposals include requests for comment on alternatives, suggesting the FCC has not yet determined its final approach on several key issues.

Notes

1. An ETC is a telecommunications service provider that has been officially designated to participate in the Lifeline program and receive Universal Service Fund reimbursements.
2. FCC Form 481 is an annual report filed by ETCs to the USAC to maintain eligibility for High Cost and/or Lifeline universal service support. The form collects financial and operational data, including network capabilities, rate comparability, and supply chain security, to ensure funding is used appropriately.
3. FCC Form 555, the "Annual Lifeline Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Certification Form," is a mandatory yearly filing for Lifeline program service providers (ETCs) to report the results of their annual subscriber recertification and non-usage de-enrollment. It certifies that carriers properly verify consumer eligibility to prevent fraud.  

Quick Summary of Major Proposed Changes

Proposal	Primary Impact	Most Affected
Immigration status verification	Subscribers	Qualified aliens; immigrant households
Full SSN collection	Both	Privacy-concerned subscribers; providers needing security upgrades
Secondary consent verification	Both	Subscribers without email; providers with aggressive sales tactics
Usage tracking for all plans	Both	Paid plan subscribers; providers with alternative billing models
Voice-only phase-out	Subscribers	160,000+ voice-only users; seniors; rural areas
One-per-residence rule	Subscribers	Multi-family housing; group homes; shared addresses
Enhanced compliance plans	Providers	Non-facilities-based carriers; new entrants; small providers
Letters of credit requirement	Providers	Non-facilities-based carriers; smaller providers with limited capital
State opt-out elimination	Both	Texas and Oregon subscribers/providers
Minimum service standards reform	Both	All participants; impact depends on final standards adopted

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

---

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2025. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

---

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg