States Warned Not to Abandon Consumers While Conforming to Federal Lifeline
Matching updated federal Lifeline rules may not be best for state consumers, some cautioned this week in two state proceedings to harmonize state and federal low-income rules. In New Mexico, state commission staff said waiving state eligibility rules may be the simplest way forward, but a tribal-owned provider said one-third of its Lifeline customers may no longer qualify for support if the state conforms fully to the federal eligibility rules. In California, which got an FCC waiver, consumer groups sparred with providers over how closely the state LifeLine program should adhere to the federal program’s portability freeze rules. Several states are now working to harmonize state and federal Lifeline rules after the FCC's December waiver decision (see 1612070043).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
New Mexico faced no FCC penalty for not meeting the Dec. 2 deadline, even though the FCC denied its request for waiver, said Public Regulation Commission Telecom Bureau Chief Mike Ripperger. The state commission collected comments this week on how to proceed (docket 16-00319-UT). NMPRC staff recommended the commission waive state eligibility criteria in favor of the federal criteria. "This would simplify the administrative process for carriers offering Lifeline service in New Mexico, but would deprive some telecommunications customers of the state $3.50 [Low Income Telephone Assistance Program] discount,” it commented.
Mescalero Apache Telecom warned the commission not to abandon consumers who may not qualify under the new federal rules. The FCC didn’t pre-empt NMPRC ability to administer the state Lifeline program and the state commission "should not, in any way, shape, or form, reduce state lifeline support or impede low income customers' ability to qualify for such assistance,” the tribal-owned telco said. Many customers in the company's territory relied on criteria eliminated by the FCC Lifeline order, including 34 percent of its Lifeline customers that qualified under the National School Lunch Program, it said. New Mexico should continue providing state Lifeline support to people who want only voice service, it said.
Windstream urged the commission to immediately waive conflicting eligibility criteria while launching a rulemaking to conform the state Lifeline eligibility rules to the FCC program. A group of state RLECs concurred. Without a waiver, it could take more than a year to harmonize the state program, Windstream said. “A new rule has not yet been proposed or noticed.” Eligibility matters may be quickly addressed, the telco said, but “the issue of standalone BIAS may be quite controversial and therefore might significantly delay the adoption of a new rule.” Replies are due Jan. 20.
California won FCC waivers on eligibility and port-freeze requirements, but as state commissioners prepared to vote next Thursday on aligning state LifeLine rules with the federal program, industry and consumer groups disagreed over the details of the proposed decision (PD). The Utilities Reform Network (TURN) and other consumer groups said in reply comments posted Tuesday (docket R1103013) they want the state program to provide more consumer rights than the federal program does. "Providers continue to argue that the California LifeLine program should do nothing but conform to the federal program. However, the Commission has repeatedly made clear the importance of maintaining a state program that serves the unique needs of California consumers,” the consumer groups said. Providers want a 12-month port freeze for broadband service to conform with the federal program, but consumer groups said the record supports a 60-day port freeze on LifeLine bundles that include voice.
The consumer groups said to reject industry attempts to shift costs to program participants and the state LifeLine program: "Despite the fact that this PD institutes a portability freeze that addresses providers’ concerns about recouping costs, providers propose additional rules that would allow them to collect more subsidies at the expense of the consumer. Many of these proposed rules would make it unreasonably difficult for program participants to invoke one of the exceptions to the benefit port freeze.”
The consumer groups "propose changes that would further weaken the port freeze and add unnecessary complexity and expense to the LifeLine program,” TracFone replied. The carrier said the CPUC should reject a proposal to shorten the enrollment freeze to 14 days from 30 days in the proposed decision. Agency data show 25 percent of these ports occur in less than 30 days, said the company. "Though most of these transfers are doubtless well-intended, some are not, and many are wasteful." Last week, CTIA urged quick alignment of the low-income rules, particularly to provide relief to veterans and surviving spouses (see 1701050042).