The Lifeline for Low-Income Americans

The Lifeline program was established in 1985 to help low-income Americans afford access to important communications. Our nation’s enduring guarantee is opportunity for all, and assisting financially struggling Americans access fundamental communications empowers individuals to pursue new opportunities and build better lives. This principle has remained constant since Lifeline’s inception. Within 1996, Congress ratified the goal of access to advanced communications for low-income consumers in the Communications Act. Over a period of three decades, the program has helped tens of millions of Americans afford fundamental phone service. But as communications technologies and markets evolve, the Personal assistant program also has to evolve to stay relevant. As I told Congress earlier this year, it is time to overhaul Lifeline to make sure it is still performing the critical functionality for which it was formed.

Today, we take the first step in that process. I am circulating new proposals to “reboot” Lifeline for the Internet age.

First, we propose to make Lifeline more efficient plus impactful by establishing minimum standards of service for voice plus broadband, so both beneficiaries and those who pay into the fund can know that they are getting the best value.

Broadband is key to Lifeline’s future. In 2015, broadband entry is essential to find a job: more than 80 percent of Fortune 500 job openings are online. Americans require broadband to keep a job, as companies increasing require basic digital literacy skills. We rely on broadband to control and receive healthcare, and to assist our children do their homework. The 2012 study estimated that broadband helps a typical U. S. consumer saves $8, 800 a year by giving access to bargains on goods and services.

But nearly 30 percent of Americans still haven’t adopted broadband at home, and low-income consumers disproportionately lack access. While more than 95 percent of households with earnings over $150, 000 have broadband, only 48 percent of those making less than $25, 000 have program at home. A world of broadband “haves” and “have-nots” is a world where none of us will have the opportunity to enjoy the full fruits of what broadband has to offer.

But setting up minimum service levels is not enough to ensure that this program is serving the core mission. We also propose an overhaul of the way we determine eligibility for Lifeline. Presently, Lifeline providers are responsible for ensuring eligibility, a situation that invites waste plus fraud while burdening those providers who do want to comply. All of us also ask about ways to target the Lifeline subsidy to those low-income consumers most in need of the support, that is one of the reform principles advanced simply by my colleague Commissioner O’Rielly.

We also seek discuss how to encourage more providers to participate in the program, increasing competition plus consumer choice on price plus service offerings.

Getting Lifeline reform right won’t be easy. Fortunately, Lifeline reforms followed in 2012 put the program on stable footing and laid the foundation for a comprehensive overhaul. I look forward to working with my colleagues to resolve the difficult questions before us. In particular, I want to commend Commissioner Clyburn for driving the important effort to further eliminate waste materials in the program and re-focus this program to better serve those who need it many.

No Responses to “The Lifeline for Low-Income Americans”

By submitting a comment here you grant a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at admin's discretion.