Industry Players Join Resistance to FCC Plan to Eliminate Lifeline Support for Resellers

joined consumer advocates, state regulators and others in objecting to an FCC proposal to shift Lifeline low-income support to facilities-based service. CTIA, ITTA, Mobile Future, Sprint, USTelecom and Verizon voiced resistance to the proposed exclusion of resellers. The commission should "reject proposals to condition receipt of federal Lifeline support on network build-out," said Sprint: "The modest per-subscriber subsidy, whose receipt is not guaranteed, makes the Lifeline program ill-suited as a direct mechanism to spur capital-intensive broadband deployment." USTelecom "strongly supports policies that encourage investment in broadband-capable networks," saying "the Commission should not utilize the Lifeline program to achieve a goal for which it is not designed. Instead, the Commission should focus its efforts on ensuring the successful implementation of the National Verifier, which will cure the clear majority of the issues raised in the Notice." Among others objecting to the facilities-based proposal were: NARUC; some state regulatory commissions; National Grange; NATOA and National League of Cities (here); National Urban League and others (here); New York City; Boston, Los Angeles and other cities (here); the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council and others (here); Rainbow Push Coalition's Jesse Jackson Sr. and former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. ATN International backed the FCC proposal to dedicate support to facilities-based carriers, as did District of Columbia Public Service Commission Chairman Betty Ann Kane, with a caveat. Various parties opposed capping the Lifeline budget and argued for continuing to support voice-only services. There were mixed views on whether a federal Lifeline broadband provider designation should be eliminated.