FCC Releases Lifeline Program Reforms

The Federal Communications Commission released a Report and Order aimed at strengthening the Lifeline’s program’s enrollment, recertification, and reimbursement processes so that Universal Service Fund dollars are directed only toward qualifying low-income consumers. Specifically, these reforms include:

• Prohibiting participating carriers from paying commissions to employees or sales agents based on the number of consumers who apply for or are enrolled in the Lifeline program with that carrier.
• Requiring participating carriers’ employees or sales agents involved in enrollment to register with the program administrator, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).
• Codifying a rule that strengthens prohibitions barring Lifeline providers from claiming “subscribers” that are deceased.
• Taking additional steps to better identify duplicate subscribers, prevent reimbursement for fictitious subscribers, and better target carrier audits to identify potential FCC rule violations.
• Increasing transparency by posting aggregate subscribership data, including data broken out at the county level, on USAC’s website.
• Increasing transparency with states by directing USAC to share information regarding suspicious activity with state officials.

The Order also restores the traditional and lawful role of the states in designating carriers to participate in the Lifeline program, furthering their important role in monitoring and enforcing carrier activities.

A Further Notice seeks comment on additional measures to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, including ways to ensure the accuracy of carriers’ claims that subscribers are using their Lifeline service on an ongoing basis and whether providers’ practice of providing free cell phones during in-person Lifeline enrollment events encourages ineligible applicants to attempt to enroll in the program. The Further Notice also seeks comment on appropriate program goals and metrics for a modernized Lifeline program.

Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks do not support the Order. Commissioner Rosenworcel said, "This program has made it possible for low-income consumers to reach out in crisis; seek employment; secure healthcare; and interact with local, state, and federal government. But in the last few years the Federal Communications Commission has failed to recognize that Lifeline is about opportunity. That’s regrettable because in its place this agency has consistently offered cruelty, harming a program whose primary purpose is to lend a hand and help. To be clear, this means cruelty to as many as 2 million elderly Americans who rely on this program for basic connectivity. It means cruelty to the roughly 1.3 million veterans who have served our country and rely on Lifeline service to stay in touch. It means cruelty to those recovering from disaster, like the half a million residents of Puerto Rico who are still rebuilding their lives and communities in the wake of Hurricane Maria and rely on this program to communicate. It means cruelty to the more than 20,000 women, men and children across the country who call a domestic violence hotline every day because many of the organizations behind those hotlines depend on Lifeline to help protect those who call from future harm. And it means cruelty to the 650,000 homeless youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender and may rely on discounted access to wireless service to stay safe."

Commissioner Starks said, "I am deeply troubled by many toxic questions asked by the FNPRM. It seeks comments on whether the Commission should “ask Lifeline applicants whether they would be able to afford their Lifeline-supported service without the Lifeline discount,” and asserts that some consumers may be willing to 'purchase some level of broadband service even in the absence of a Lifeline benefit' because they 'may value broadband access so highly.' It goes on to ask questions about a fee in exchange for receiving a handset or device in-person at enrollment, and about program integrity recommendations as it relates to usage requirements. To the best of my research, I don’t believe we’ve ever probed elderly Medicare recipients on how much they actually value their medical services; nor should we probe vulnerable, Lifeline recipients on how much they value their connectivity."