NASUCA Lifeline Reply Comments
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Lifeline and Link Up Reform and ) WC Docket No. 11-42 Modernization ) ) Federal-State Joint Board on Universal ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Service ) ) WC Docket No. 03-109 Lifeline and Link Up ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING David C. Bergmann Assistant Consumers’ Counsel Chair, NASUCA Telecommunications Committee [email protected] Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel 10 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, OH 43215-3485 Phone (614) 466-8574 Fax (614) 466-9475 NASUCA 8380 Colesville Road (Suite 101) Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone (301) 589-6313 Fax (301) 589-6380 May 25, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. PERFORMANCE GOALS................................................................................................. 3 III. CONSTRAINING THE SIZE OF THE LOW INCOME FUND....................................... 3 IV. IMPROVING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ............................................................. 5 A. UNIFORM ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS ......................................................................................... 5 B. COORDINATED ENROLLMENT................................................................................................... 6 V. CONSUMER OUTREACH & MARKETING .................................................................. 7 VI. MODERNIZING THE LOW INCOME PROGRAM........................................................ 9 A. VOICE TELEPHONY SERVICE .................................................................................................... 9 B. SUPPORT AMOUNTS FOR VOICE SERVICE ........................................................................... 10 C. MINIMUM SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOICE SERVICE .............................................. 12 D. SUPPORT FOR BUNDLED SERVICE ......................................................................................... 12 E. THE TRANSITION TO BROADBAND .......................................................................... 13 VII. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 15 i Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Lifeline and Link Up Reform and ) WC Docket No. 11-42 Modernization ) ) Federal-State Joint Board on Universal ) CC Docket No. 96-45 Service ) ) WC Docket No. 03-109 Lifeline and Link Up ) REPLY COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES ON NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING I. INTRODUCTION On March 4, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission” or “FCC”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in these dockets.1 As described by the FCC, the reforms set forth in the NPRM will significantly bolster protections against waste, fraud, and abuse; control the size of the program; strengthen program administration and accountability; improve enrollment and outreach efforts; and support pilot projects that would assist the Commission in assessing strategies to increase broadband adoption, while not increasing overall program size.2 The National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (“NASUCA”) filed comments on the NPRM, as did other consumer advocates, state regulators, and many industry entities. Per the direction in the NPRM, NASUCA filed reply comments on certain portions of the NPRM on May 10, 2011.3 Further pursuant to the NPRM, these 1 FCC 11-32 (rel. March 4, 2011). 2, NPRM, ¶ 1. 3 Those reply comments addressed Sections IV (¶¶ 46-102) , V (Subsection A) (¶¶ 103-125), and VII (Subsections B and D) (¶¶ 158-198 and 205-222, respectively) of the NPRM. reply comments address certain of the remaining sections, being Sections III (¶¶ 28-45), VI (¶¶ 126-141), VII (Subsections A, C, and E) (¶¶ 152-157, 199-204 and 223-225, respectively), VIII (¶¶226-238) and IX (¶¶239-312) of the NPRM.4 NASUCA’s failure to address any particular party’s position on a particular issue should not be deemed to be acquiescence in that position.5 But NASUCA must address here one position taken by a single party: That is USTelecom’s argument that “Lifeline Service Should Be Funded From General Revenues.”6 Although superficially attractive as a politico-philosophical argument, Congress has already decided where Lifeline funding should come from. That is the universal service fund, where funding comes from telecommunications carriers and their customers.7 USTelecom’s comparison of Lifeline to other low-income support programs misses a crucial point: the network effects of telephone service, where the service is more valuable to each customer the greater the number of other customers who are on the 4 As customary, NASUCA does not address the Tribal issues in Section V.B. 5 Comments responded to here include those by Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, et al. (“ABLE, et al.”); Amvensys Telecom Holdings, LLC (“Amvensys”); AT&T; Benton Foundation, et al. (“Benton, et al.”); Budget PrePay,® Inc., GreatCall, Inc., and PR Wireless, Inc. d/b/a Open Mobile (“Budget, et al.”); CenturyLink; Cincinnati Bell, Inc. (“Cincinnati Bell”); COMPTEL; Conexions LLC dba Conexion Wireless (“Conexions”); Consumer Cellular, Inc. “Consumer Cellular”); Cox Communications, Inc. (“Cox”); CTIA – The Wireless Association® (“CTIA”); the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”); Keep USF Fair Coalition (“KUSFF”); Leap Wireless International, Inc. and Cricket Communications, Inc. (“Cricket”); the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable (“MDTC”); the Mississippi Public Service Commission (“MPSC”); National ALEC Association/Prepaid Communications Association (“NALA/PCA”); National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (“NTCA”); the New York Public Service Commission (“NY PSC”); Nexus Communications, Inc. (“Nexus”); One Economy Corporation (“One Economy”); Open Access Connections, et al. (“Open Access, et al.”); the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia (“DC PSC”); Smith Bagley, Inc. (“SBI”); Sprint Nextel Corporation (“Sprint”); the Staff of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (“PUCO Staff”); TracFone Wireless, Inc. (“TracFone”); United States Telecom Association (“USTelecom”); YourTel America, Inc. (“YourTel”). 6 US Telecom Comments at 2-2-4. 7 47 U.S.C. § 254. 2 network.8 In that respect, USTelecom’s argument that Lifeline funding “discourage[es] adoption and/or usage of communications services” – including broadband services9 – could also be applied to the rest of the universal service fund, including the high-cost fund.10 Yet there also, the network effects make payments through the current funding mechanism appropriate. II. PERFORMANCE GOALS Few commenters had anything to say about performance goals, and some of what was said was quite vague and of little use.11 ABLE, et al., by contrast, provided an analysis12 that, for instance, correctly calls into question the metric of the Commission’s availability goal.13 NASUCA agrees with the MDTC that the goals must be “clearly established.”14 III. CONSTRAINING THE SIZE OF THE LOW INCOME FUND The FCC had proposed that the existing Lifeline program be capped at the 2010 8 Other than for the general social good, on the other hand, neither food nor heat (see id. at 2) are more valuable to a food stamp or LIHEAP recipient as a result of other consumers’ receipt of assistance. 9 Id. at 3. 10 One of USTelecom’s proposals for the broadband pilot is “discount elimination – the phasing out of the discount after some period of time.” Id. at 24. USTelecom reasons that “low-income consumers may reevaluate the value proposition of having such services and make the decision to retain it even without a Lifeline discount.” Id. One wonders what USTelecom’s membership would think of applying such a concept to the high-cost fund. 11 See Consumer Cellular Comments at 5-7; Cricket Comments at 3-4. 12 ABLE, et al. Comments at 13-16. 13 Id. at 14-15. 14 MDTC Comments at 2. 3 level of disbursements.15 NASUCA opposed this proposal, stating, The low-income fund, conversely, is “threatened” because it has finally become successful in providing communications services to low-income Americans that they need and prefer. Instead of congratulating the ETCs – and the states that have authorized them16 – that are providing an essential public service, we somehow have come to the point where the FCC seeks to put a halt to Lifeline expansion because success is finally being achieved in reaching a long sought goal.17 There were few commenters who supported a cap. The MPSC apparently does so, with the caveat that there should be a state-specific cap.18 But the MPSC also “requests that no action be taken on deployment of a cap if low-income persons would be deprived of needed support.”19 It is not at all clear how a cap could work without depriving qualifying individuals of support. Most of the commenters, representing a wide spectrum of industry and others, also opposed capping the Lifeline fund with various degrees of strength.20 A cap is not needed, and, as Conexions asserts, Implementation of a low-income cap also would be entirely impracticable. As the NPRM observes, implementation of a cap would require the Commission to decide, for example, how to allocate capped funding among the states and among existing and new Lifeline customers. Would